> The "partial recount" was in effect a sampling, done in Palm >Beach
County. Based on this sampling of 1% of the ballots, >it was determined that
a full recount was justified. It is not >the second hand recount in Palm
Beach County, it is the >first *full* hand recount.
I knew it wasn't a second hand recount. I think I said, or at least meant,
it was a second recount (after the first machine recount) by hand.
> To review, hand recounts are provided for in Florida law.
Yes, but I thought the lawyers in Florida were saying the statute provides
for a hand recount in the case of the machine not working. There is some
legal dispute about having a hand recount for other reasons.
> The Bush campaign is attempting to make new law by challenging this
long-established procedure.
Not at all, at most they are trying to get an interpretation of the current
law and a ruling on the legality or illegality of the way this is being
handled.
> Ironically, George W. himself signed legislation providing >for> hand
recounts in Texas. But suddenly he decides hand >recounts are a bad idea?
He had no individual choice whether to sign it - it was Omnibus legislation.
The hand recounts in Texas are also provided for in the event of machine
problems, not, I believe for second review interpretative purposes.
> As for "mischief," I don't see a big potential for mischief in >this
instance. The world is watching, for god's sake. There >was a bigger
potential for mischief on November 7th, when some political operatives might
have thought the world *wasn't* watching.
Matter of opinion.
Kakki
