But who else but the partisans can act in the courts?
"Despite imprecise data and differing interpretations of dozens of possible results, there was broad agreement on one of the least noted realities of the Florida recount: Had election officials and the courts sought to identify the choice of the electorate, rather than to satisfy the demands of partisans, Gore would have emerged as the winner.
For all the sound and fury that accompanied the election, this point is consistently ignored.I don't think that point is being ignored.
If the people running in the election don't choose to exercise their options under the law for a state-wide recount, then how can the courts step in and say "look, you should have done this because you're not allowing the real winner to be determined otherwise."? The election laws weren't set up that way. Full recounts in the affected areas would be automatic otherwise and they aren't. It was up to Bush and/or Gore to request a state-wide manual recount. Neither did by the deadline.
The election laws in Florida and other places were set up such that it was up to the people running for office to decide which options they were going to persue. They, from their own self-interest, exercised the options they had under the law to do what they thought would maximize their chance of winning. Gore apparently made the wrong choice.
The Florida election was a tie to within the margin of error. Both parties tried their best to make the result swing their way. I hope the laws in Florida and other places are being adjusted to help minimize chances of train-wrecks like the FL case, but there are going to be difficulties like this whenever the election is within the margin of error.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
