CDR: Re: Close Elections and Causality

[Ken Brown]

Tim May wrote:
> 
> * In a close, nearly-tied election, should a re-vote be allowed?
> 
> * In a close sports game, should all potential "fork" decisions
> (referee calls) be reviewed and the game rolled-back...even hours
> later? Should critical plays be re-played the next day?
> 
> * Did the woman who voted at 9 a.m. but whose vote was counted at the
> _end_ of the final count, and whose vote seemingly "caused" one
> candidate to win and another to lose _actually_ "cause" the outcome?
> 
> * Did Oregon, for example, whose votes were counted last and whose
> votes put a candidate over the top actually "cause" the outcome?

[... quite a lot snipped...]

This is almost an argument *for* re-running the election. If the Palm
Beach (or whatever the place is called) voters tip the balance to either
Gore or Bush can they in any real sense be said to have decided the
election? Their votes still won't count for any more than any other
citizen of Florida. 


ISTM that the real reason for avoiding a re-vote is is the practicality
of it. All that money, media attention and lawyerage will be focussed on
a small group of people, as Tim points out later:

> Deciding that one of those states or one of those counties was
> "decisive" (caused the outcome, was a hinge point, etc.) and thus
> should be given a chance to hold a new vote, has numerous
> implications for fairness:
> 
> * instead of being just another voter, just another voting site, the
> N residents will now have the weight of the entire election outcome
> on their shoulders
> 
> * intensive lobbying for votes will occur, far beyond the original
> lobbying (when I say "far beyond" I mean by several orders of
> magnitude...it might be that all residents would have to be
> sequestered from the time of the announcement of a re-vote to the
> actual re-vote just to ensure that bribes are not offered, etc.).

[...more snips...]
 
> Rules are rules. The time to object is beforehand. Unless extremely
> serious voter fraud is found, results should not be thrown out when
> those results are in accordance with the rules. In no cases should a
> re-vote of a "hinge county" be allowed for less-than-massive-fraud
> reasons.

But are there no rules in Florida allowing for a re-vote? If there
really are 19,000 spoiled papers from once county, that sounds "massive"
to me. It may not be fraud - the fools who designed the papers probably
thought they were doing right - but it has the same effect.
 
> And, of course, Palm County will _not_ be given a second chance to
> vote in this election. I guarantee it.

When did they make you a Florida judge?   (About the same time they made
me an expert on the laws of a state I've never visited & know nothing
about I suppose...)

Ken Brown (unfortunately a fan of elections and constitutions)