Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Coming late to this party...re: the recount in 2000
Hey, folks. Now that we've maligned the executive, legislative and judicial branches, let's throw another fly in the ointment and point the finger of blame where it truly belongs: at Florida, which created the problem in the first place through the use of (allegedly) antiquated equipment, (allegedly) confusing ballots and apparently an electorate populated by too many people that can't manage to do something that seems pretty simple: pay attention to what the heck you are doing and cast a vote.
Personally I would have had no problem with a proper and accurate recount. The problem in 2000, though, was the manner of the recount. After all, I think we would all agree that the whole point of a recount is to accurately count the votes that were cast, right? Well, to any rational person that means you pick up the ballot, if it's marked, you count it appropriately, and if it's not, it doesn't count at all, one way or the other.
As I recall, that is not what was going on in Florida. Due to the "confusing ballot" and "hanging chad" allegations you had people examining ballots with magnifying glasses in an attempt to "discern" the voter's intentions in casting the ballot. Now THAT is a situation with 'disaster' written all over it. For example, there were ballots that didn't have a hanging chad, but a "dimple" on the chad. Now what the heck does that mean? To me, that means a non-vote, not a failed attempt to poke out the chad. Other ballots had no vote cast for president and no dimples or hanging chads. That should mean that the person meant ALL of the options sucked and they purposefully didn't vote for president, but how does that get counted? And does a hanging chad mean the pin failed to poke the chad complete out or does that mean the counting machines (and previous recountings) dislodged the chad? (It's probably worth noting that many other states use this same system, and when you poke the pin in all the way, the chad falls out, it doesn't hang.)
That is why I was appalled at the recount nonsense and was relieved when the Supreme Court stopped the recount. And yes, I would feel EXACTLY the same way if that had resulted in a Gore victory. Simply put: there was no way to provide for a proper and accurate recount given all of the problems in Florida.
Thus, the only way to have rectified these problems would have been to throw out all election results -- from all of the states -- and revote the entire election. After all, at that point everyone knew that the outcome hinged on Florida, so it would have skewed the result if you had just done a revote in Florida.
Bottom line, the 2000 election is by any definition settled history. That said, I realize that the left of the left will NEVER let this issue go because it is driven by their deep hatred for Bush and anything that he touches. For the rest of us, whether we agree with the outcome or not, we can at least take comfort that we've managed to get on with our lives and stop arguing about a "stolen" election.