>
Right, I suppose. I guess the question here is how "The Will of the People"
is defined.
In this case it is defined as bush or gore. It is binary and therefore you
can define the results as which one had more votes.
The problem with this analogy, I suppose, is that for all practical
purposes, we're looking at a binary that isn't transposable to a medical
metaphor, right? I mean to say, if you are looking at my gut for a tumor,
and you find a region in which there is a pretty much 50/50 mingling of
tumor and non-tumor tissue, what do you do?
No think about looking at an image, a photo of a person. The light is low so
you can't make out if it is your uncle fred or his brother harold who look
alike and are of similar height. In order to make this fine distinction you
need a better picture. More light, higher resolution lens etc. But if all you
need to know is whether it is fred or his two year old son (a man or a child
not which specific man) you can make that distinction easily. It is coarser
measure but given the data available a more accurate measure.
When your voting population is *that* close to 50/50,
perhaps the time for partisan oppositionalism is past
this will not happen. there is too much at stake to keep partisanship out.
Who would do it? The people who make the decisions are all more or less
partisan. They have been selected by their partisanship (the nonpartisans
usually lose)
