Alex B. Shepardsen writes:

So we've got a problem. The voting methods we have aren't adequate. It's obvious that something needs to be done to fix this for the future... but what would you have happen now?

I wonder if Gore partisans would accept ANY voting method as adequate while their guy was behind. I don't really see that there is a problem. The methods of voting are a local and/or state matter. Various jurisdictions are already making plans to change their voting methods for the next election. Fine, that is their prerogative. However, if some localities continue to utilize punch cards and the so-called butterfly ballots, that's okay too. No ballot is going to be idiot proof (cause you know how ingenious those idiots are). There will always be spoiled ballots; it's just a matter of degree. The proportion of spoiled ballots in the "disputed" areas in Florida is no higher than in many other precincts throughout the country. Since those who created the ballot and who ran the election in the disputed areas of Florida are of the same party as Gore, and since the FL Supremes -- who pretty much just went out and made up their own laws to help Gore out -- are essentially all of Gore's party as well, I'm not worried that some great injustice has occurred despite Bush's brother being "governor of the province". The ballot design may well have been responsible for Bush winning and Gore losing, but since the decisions on the ballot design and deployment were made through the ordinary statutory mechanisms, well, it's just tough shit for Gore. (And as for the notion that some foreigners might think our election looks like that in a "banana republic": Who cares? If it lowers our credibility as the World's Policeman or as potential "election monitors" the next time a *real* banana republic holds an election, that's great! The less we stick our noses in others' business, the better.)

Without a full recount, Bush's victory will always be questioned.

It is no longer possible to select a winner in the 2000 election whose victory will NOT be questioned by some. So what? At this point, no matter who wins, at least 48% of the population feels that the winner "stole the election". With respect to future elections, it is probably more advantageous to be the loser in this one (well, at least the losing party, if not the losing candidate). You go into the next election with a solid half of the population convinced that you got screwed; convince a small number of the other half and you've got the 2004 election sewn up.

With more legal battles from Gore, he loses credibility as the US citizens lose faith in the electorial process.

Only from simpletons who believe Gore's oh-so-sincere "every vote MUST be counted." I mean, really: it's a fine sentiment, but it's never going to happen. If our inability to reach perfection is going to cause citizens to "lose faith in the electorial[sic] process", it simply shows that they're not paying attention (big surprise).

How do you propose this be handled? I've not seen any good suggestions yet that address all concerns.

What's to handle? Those who don't like it either get over it, or they join the revolution :-). - GH _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com