December 12th, 2000


Why, oh why did I have to be right?

I previously said that I felt that the U.S. Supreme Court would have a gripe about ANY kind of recount because voting (and recounts in particular) don't use a uniform standard.

Well, looks like I was right. A majority of judges in the Supreme Court believed that the standards that local counties used in counting votes were inherently different... and therefore inherently unfair and unconstitutional in the process of a statewide recount.

Did you know you were participating in an inherently flawed and unconstitutional process when you cast your vote? You should feel lucky they even let you live here...

These wise people stopped the process of a state's recount, essentially in order to say that recounts, by their very nature, were unconstitutional... but none of them could agree upon any standard that would be either constitutional or better than the one that states have used for years! In fact, it was the opinion of several of the most conservative of the Supreme Court justices that this "flawed system" was inherently unfair and a recount couldn't possibly be completed with a fair set of standards!

Sure, I believe that voting could be done in a fairer manner, with a better, more accurate means of tallying a vote, but you have to work with what you've got. People shouldn't lose their votes because you find flaws in the system that everyone is using across the whole country.

It's not the votes that are flawed, it's the U.S. Supreme Court.

... but here is the real rub. They have the audacity to stop a recount that was on schedule for successful completion by the supposed December 12th deadline, only to say that recounts, in general, are flawed... oh, and by the way, we're not sure you can do anything to really fix the situation, but you have until midnight tonight to change your state's standards for recounts and do the whole thing over again!

Bullshit. The Supreme Court are flying in the face of history on this one... In 1960 in the Nixon/Kennedy presidential election, Nixon won the first count of the votes in Hawaii. What did Hawaii do? They recounted all the votes, appointed two slates of presidential electors, and Kennedy won Hawaii! When did Hawaii finish their due process and appoint their second slate of electors? December 28th, 1960... Did the U.S. Supreme Court challenge Hawaii's rights to count their state's votes and decide their electors appropriately? No.

So, judging from the decision tonight, I think only one thing is an appropriate solution to the situation... Exhume Nixon! Dig up the old man's decomposing, worm ridden carcass and put him back in charge! Four more years!!!

"Let the jury consider their verdict"...
"No, no!" said the Queen.
"Sentence first -- verdict afterwards!"

- Lewis Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland"