"See if we can figure out." Greaaaaat. As we've discussed a zillion times already, a totally accurate count cannot be achieved. (To paraphrase what harmful said in the referenced thread, "The margin of victory is so small as to disappear within the noise.") It's physically impossible. And the refusal to recount other states where the margin of error was larger than the margin of victory makes it even more useless to even bother recounting Florida in the first place.
The system worked. The end.posted by aaron at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2001
Besides, is there a system that can produce a legitimate winner beyond any question when the results are so close? (No, not computerized/Internet systems. I'll never trust those to be 100% tamper- and error-proof.) Actually, one thing that would help a lot would be to adopt the British standard for handling messed-up ballots: If it's filled out wrong, it's immediately destroyed. No more "discernment of voter intent" BS.posted by aaron at 11:24 AM on February 25, 2001
If Secretary of State Katherine Harris had let South Florida counties complete manual recounts before certifying the results of last November's election, George W. Bush likely would have won the presidency outright, without weeks of indecision and political warfare, a review of Miami-Dade County's "undervote" ballots shows.posted by aaron at 12:48 AM on February 26, 2001
Here is an interesting analysis of the electoral college which argues in favor of keeping it. I was always in favor of getting rid of it ... until I read that. Now I'm not so sure.posted by Potsy at 5:28 AM on February 26, 2001
« Older There is no more heartfelt memorial... | Blair and Bush agree that all ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt