7 Answers | Add Yours
I think that this election has had long-standing effects on everything from politics to law. I recently heard Laura Bush speak, and even she regrets the decision. They wanted to win, of course, but the win was tainted forever after. Who wants to win like that?
I would have to agree that the most important thing was to get an accurate count and taking all the time needed to make certain it was accurate was the appropriate thing to do. I am not sure with all the other allegations of fraud there could truly be an accurate count.
Post election history that has emerged since the 2000 vote revealed huge amounts of voter fraud from both parties. The truth is we will never truly know who would have won that election if all the ballots had been cast and counted. That point aside, I do believe the Florida Supreme Court acted correctly (not to be confused with the US Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision) in attempting to have an accurate recount.
Accuracy trumps speed. Many times, when we act hastily, we step in huge piles of sticky stuff we would rather not have on our shoes. For instance, when we rush bills through without properly thinking about where all the money for that bill will come from...everything looks great on paper, doesn't it?
Very difficult question and you are going to get a wide range of responses. I must admit, I do have to agree with #2 - at the end of the day we have democratic voting systems precisely because we don't want decisions to be rushed through and we want our votes to count. Although personally I would have preferred a different result, fortunately I don't get to choose the American president myself!
In my opinion, the Florida Supreme Court did act properly. To me, the most important thing to achieve in a recount is accuracy. I think that it is more important to count all the votes correctly than to meet a given deadline.
Therefore, I think this court acted properly in extending the deadline for the recount.
No they did not. Without the basis of any supporting law or precedent, the Florida Supreme Court attempted to force the trial court into giving Al Gore what it felt was the Gore campaign's best chance to cobble together enough winning votes. Al Gore still was losing after the machine recounts. Only by hand counting the under-votes in a democrat controlled county, did the court see the opportunity for Gore to win.
The legal problem with the court's decision was that without the court setting forth basic standards, the hand recounts were too subjective. The court also screwed up by only seeking to count under-votes rather than all the votes. The trial court found no error, fraud, coercion, improper influence or gross negligence in the voting or counting process and thus no basis for rejecting the trial court's decision. Four members of the Florida Supreme Court abandoned their judicial duty for blind political partisanship.
We’ve answered 319,647 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question