Replies

The thread was about Carter.

Show me where Katherine Harris broke the law. All ballots had to be certified by the Secretary of State by 5 P.M. seven days after the election. No wiggle room. Her actions followed the law.

Someone has to certify elections. If it is an elected post, that person will very probably be a member of a political party. As such, that person probably attends conventions of their party, contributes financially to election campaigns, speaks out in favor of the candidates of their party, etc. Should we rule out all members of political parties from holding the office that certifies elections?

If the person who certifies elections is an appointed person, then it could be argued that they owe something to the person that appointed them, who was doubtless a member of a political party.

In the case of certifying an election, the appearance of impropriety is essentially impossible to avoid.

"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida," Carter said.

Good deal Jimmy, maybe this time we can focus on all the snow birds voting twice and all the dead people voting for your party!

The thread was about Carter.

True. But I raised a side issue that I though was germane to the general issue of fair elections.

Show me where Katherine Harris broke the law. ...

Why? I never asserted that she did. Both public and private entities have conflict-of-interest laws and regulations precisely because it's important to avoid both actual conflicting actions and the appearance that someone might have committed one.

Someone has to certify elections. If it is an elected post, that person will very probably be a member of a political party. As such, that person probably attends conventions of their party, ... [etc.]All good points. But active participation in a party is one thing. Participating in organizing an election for a particular partisan interest while being the head of the body that is supposed to regulate that election is going too far, in my NSHO. It's like having the head of Planned Parenthood in charge of an state's abortion clinic regulatory board.

In the case of certifying an election, the appearance of impropriety is essentially impossible to avoid.

100% Yes. But you can do a lot better than this.