American vs Canadian efficiency

[Richard Moody]

>
> >   In the Fla. recount  Bush's lead is
> >now down to 500 votes from 1,500.  So with 10,000 votes uncounted, (ones
the
> >machines rejected for whatever reasons)
>
> Those ballots were counted twice by machine, and votes for other offices
> recorded.  Many had no vote for president.  I submit that, had there been
> the choice, "non-of-the-above" would have won by a landslide.
> Conrad Hoffsommer

With a only 500 vote difference and 10,000 votes (I think this is only two
counties) unable to be counted by machine what is the big deal about
counting them by humans?  But if not counted manually it will ever be on the
minds of millions, did Bush really win?  Bush could have said, "count those
votes, if I am to win it must be clear and decisive".  It would take a very
bold leader to say this but what else can an effective "moral" leader say?
By opposing recounts he appears to be impeding the democratic process thus
begging the question; "Is he afraid to face the truth"?

>I submit that, had there been
> the choice, "non-of-the-above" would have won by a landslide.


There is no need for "non of the above" to be on ballots because that is
exactly the vote of those who do not show up at  the polls.



>
> The whole election will be a moot point, anyway.  Both houses are pretty
> evenly divided, and now extremely polarized by this post-election
campaign.
> Whoever wins will never be able to lead a gridlocked congress.
> Conrad,


IF the perception prevails that the election was finally won fair and square
then I think the country will be behind the President.  The US Supreme Court
is supposed to rule tomorrow.  They can say it is up the the States to
control the elections, or they can say no law,  person or process can impede
the casting  or the counting of ballots.  ---ric