Posted by
Iggy on Friday, July 07, 2006 11:53:01 PM
One of my fears is that after another year of psychotic drivel leading up to the next election or the election after that, one contest or another will be close enough that recounts will be demanded. I frankly believe that rules should be put into place before any more elections occur to prevent any more recounts from happening. If that seems radical, well, then good grief, I'm a radical.
First of all, if a candidate for office is such an ego-driven, self-obsessed, narcissistic dinkus (Al Gore) that believes the future of the country depends so much upon his winning the election that he can't take defeat like a man, and feels he must demand a recount, that is a man not worthy of public office.
Secondly, where is there proof that a recount would be any more accurate than the initial count? Even if all ballots remain unchanged in the process, and no ballots are added or subtracted, aren't the ballots counted by the same machines, or the same people? Could we depend on people to be objective, even if they're Swiss?
The reality is that recounts only introduce opportunity for fraud, and if fraud doesn't occur, a recount is just as prone to error as the original count. And yes, I do believe that the current governor of Washington was put into place by fraud, and the opportunity for that fraud was brought about by recounts.