[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>It turns out that in 1996, with much lower turnout, almost 15,000
> >ballots were thrown out. Thus, this figure is statistically not
> >unusual, and cannot justify a revote [...]
>
> [BEGIN playing Devil's Advocate]
>
> So because nobody cared in 1996 that things were screwed up, we're
> not allowed to care this time? Those 15,000 ballots in 1996 would
> not have had an impact so of course nobody cared then. But this
> election is a different scenario.
>
> [END playing Devil's Advocate]
>
>
> Jeff
>
[BEGIN being a smartass]
I think that's called setting a precedent.
[END being a smartass]
Kevin
My analogy is to sports which may seem trivial but allows for a clearer look
at things. In a baseball season, once a team has statistically been
eliminated from the pennent race it unlikely to protest a bad call (let us
say it the last game of the year and you are in last place and the ump makes
a mistake). The next year the team is fighting for the pennent. Same bad
call. The team protests. Is it reasonable argue that the protest should be
allowed because bad call that did not affect outcome were not protested? I
think not.
But in the end - if a bad call is made and there is no easy remedy under the
rules of the game it stands (say a runner is called out when he is safe or a
ball is interfered with by a fan and called a homerun - see yankess orioles
in 96). That is my opinioin about this election. All remedies to insure that
the ballots are correctly counted should be taken. Everywhere there is a
question. if the Republicans want to recount all of Florida that is fine with
me. Other disputed states fine as well. anywhere it couid make a difference.
We have the time. the country is not falling apart and if it took two extra
weeks to get it right so be it. there is no rush.
