Posted on 11/11/2001 3:00:48 PM PST by Sonar5
Gore edged ahead of Bush under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide... WORLD EXCLUSIVE: BIG MEDIA RECOUNT RESULTS REVEALED
Thanks be to God! A piece of rational analysis in a universe of confusion. You are to be commended, Doctor.
Suffice to say, we had an election and held it, pursuant to the law. We even had a machine recount, pursuant to the law.
Ballots are meaningless, votes are meaningful. But don't expect the media to tell us that.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
they're not the only ones..... Audio
Well, you're close. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the term 'right' does not apply, just that it is redundant.
Observe:
1. What is a Vote? Answer: A Vote is a ballot which has been Legally Counted and Certified by a Legal Deadline.
2. Certified by whom? Answer: The state's Secretary of State, presumably.
So,
3. I know that SoS Harris certified the Election for Bush in her state, but did Bush really get more Votes than Gore?
Answer: The question is redundant. See questions 1 and 2.
Law is indeed "socially constructed", and to have any law is to subscribe to the view that it might work right or wrong at different times, but at bottom it functions as a constraint on our actions that allows our society to have order. We try to tune those constraints as we go along through clear and consistent procedure, in response to signs that it's not working quite right.
This incidentally is one of the reasons our founders insisted on jury trials; they main reason they mention in their writings is that the people could vote to acquit, even if the law said not to, if the law seemed to be achieving the wrong result. Sort of a practical stopgap measure.
But we DON'T have a stopgap measure where judges and officials who don't like the law can simply disregard it. So Katherine Harris was right to follow the pre-Nov. 7 laws, and the State Supremes were wrong to ignore them and concoct a new 'convenient' monster using "equitable powers".
These people make me sick!!!!
The liberal talk show hosts from San Francisco have the votes, counted, our President Bush thrown out of office and the bearded wonder, algore, on his way to WA.
Pray for GW and the Truth!
28% - He Stole It
Way to go! Keep it up FReepers!
Doc
Ah - agreed. The people "applying standards", of course, were the local county election boards and such. It was indeed Ms. Harris' job to see to it that those standards were applied correctly.
For example, a few counties wished to have a deadline extended for the purpose of completing a hand-recount. Another way of saying this is that they wanted standards altered (the "deadline" is a component of "standards", is it not?) under which - or in this case, for how long - they could count and re-count ballots. Ms. Harris said no. She was Correct in doing so.
She was Correct, because she followed the Law (instead of disobeying or disregarding or altering the law in order to allow those counties to change their standards). Correctness and following the Law are one and the same.
This is precisely what I have been saying this whole time; perhaps I could have phrased it better?
Let me say it like this: as long as Ms. Harris followed the Law, she was Correct. If you are going to argue that Ms. Harris was Wrong, you must point to an instance in which she failed to follow the Law. Fair enough?
They can blow the call, but there's no one with legal standing to reverse them if they do.
There is something slippery in your usage of "blow the call". One way to "blow the call" is to disobey/disregard the Law. This, Ms. Harris did not do (unless you are prepared to argue otherwise?)
The problem is, that is not even what the leftists and media types mean when they imply Ms. Harris "blew the call" in the first place. Their main gripe against Ms. Harris has nothing to do with whether she followed the Law at all (even though it must, seeing as how following the Law was her one and only responsibility). Their main gripe is that, in their view, the numbers which she ended up certifying are different from numbers which they wish she had ended up certifying.
They say she "got it wrong" not because they can credibly argue that she failed to uphold the Law, but merely because they don't like the numbers. They think the numbers were "really" something else, whatever that could possibly mean.
The problem is, again, as long as Ms. Harris obeyed the Law, she cannot be "wrong". Her only responsibility was to obey the Law in the first place. Having done so, there is no "wrong". (The "right" - i.e. Legal - Vote tallies are created by the legal process of certification, so they simply cannot differ from the certified numbers!)
What's at stake here in the denial of such truisms? What's so threatening about this picture that the leap to social contructivism seems inescapable to you?
That's a fair question and I'll try to answer it. For me, the argument becomes threatening the moment a person starts mentioning the "ballots" as if they are, or should be, on equal footing with Votes. PianoMan above alludes to the problem with this view: "arbitrariness".
It's all well and good to want the Vote tallies to conform to what Actually Happened, ballot-wise. Indeed, that should be the goal. However, it's equally important, in any fair contest, for the Rules governining vote-counting to be set before the contest begins. Otherwise we get chaos. We get shifting standards, ongoing disputes, and meanwhile the physical evidence (the ballots) becomes degraded, fooled with, altered. This is dangerous.
That is why I must insist on following the Law, as the only arbiter of what is a Vote, and what is not. These papers, these ballots, are not Votes. And yes, to think otherwise is something I would consider "threatening". That way lies Balkanization.
Never forget
Now for the major BARF alert:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.