Post by OverAndUnder on Feb 9, 2009 19:08:13 GMT -5
I'm opposed to the partisan picking and pawing over every little questionable vote. We had the same squabbles in the WA gov race in 2004, and it was a big distraction for four years.
By all means, hold the recount, but under simplified rules for accepting and rejecting questionable ballots. The also set some limit for vote differential under which some other method will be used to pick the winner. (Perhaps a new election, or perhaps something else.) Let's say, 3000 votes (assuming 15000 votes is a recount trigger).
So you have your close elsction, and then you have your mandatory recount.
A) somebody wins by 3500 votes: he's the winner. Shouldn't be too controversial, because you're not going to find enough questionable ballots to overcome a 3000 vote margin.
B) Somebody wins by 2500 votes: triggers the new election, or coin flip, or whatever the law says for breaking this tie. Yes, a new election is an additional expense, but so is a protracted legal battle.
C) Somebody wins by 3501 votes: The other guy cries and cries that he's one vote short of the "Tie" margin, but so what? He can't argue that those 10 ballots that have a maybe-kinda-sorta mark for him but didn't get counted actually changed the outcome of the election. So
I'm with you on this issue, minus the coin-flip idea. Naturally, as a conservative I'd like to throw many of these situations back to the state legislatures to decide.
I am not afraid of the expense of recounts and new elections. That is one area no one should mind having a government big enough and costly enough to get it right. I'd much rather see my taxes go to paying otherwise unemployed laborers (no shortage of those these days) 10 dollars an hour to hand-count ballots than see another failed CEO get a bonus check from another republicrat bailout.