[SamAdams76]

Okay, Okay, I get the point. Alabama law does not allow for an automatic recount in close elections. Listen, I'm glad Riley won. But this is a double-edged sword that can and will be used against us later by the 'Rats when it is our guy that loses a close election.

[jwalsh07]

Yeah, I leapt without looking, mine was, without a doubt, piling on.

[cksharks]

What is it about you and commish? Are you left wing new england liberals. The law says there has to be one of three reasons to unseal the votes. NOT ONE NONE NADA of these reasons have been met. We ablolutely went crazy on this site when Gore and the LOut broke the law to do what they wanted. But I have a different attitude about demmocommies screw them. I dont care if they like me or not.I know three of the subjects in this issue. I built the last addition to the Baldwin County ct house.

[Brandon]

you'd think that a close election is the only reason you would want a recount

Actually, a close election is not a good reason for a recount (although some states call for it in that situation).

Think about it. So you have the initial count, and it says Candidate Jones beat Candidate Smith by 100 votes. So you say, "This was really close, let's do a recount." You do the recount -- and lo and behold, Candidate Smith now leads Candidate Jones by 50 votes.

But what reason is there to suppose that the second count was any more accurate than the first? The reality is that in a situation where the election is close enough that a recount might change the outcome, what that really tells you is that the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. That means that it was sheer chance which candidate happens to be ahead each time you count -- and the 2nd count doesn't give you a better number, it just gives you a different number.

Or to put it another way, if you truly believe that you can count hundreds of thousands or millions of pieces of paper twice and get the same number both times, then a recount makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.

[Illbay]

...this is a double-edged sword that can and will be used against us later by the 'Rats when it is our guy that loses a close election.

Yeah, right. We all see how much they gained by calling Pres. Bush "selected not elected" and "illegitimate."

They're now on the outside looking in, and their prospects dim even further every day. They have turned into a party run by legal hacks and trial lawyers, and they haven't begun to realize how tired the citizenry is of it.