2008 Woodie Awards
Recount? Not Again!
Why are we still counting votes when the winner is not going to change?
Jami Furo
Issue date: 12/3/04 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I bet you're tired of hearing about the presidential elections, aren't you? Well, so am I. I vowed to not write about them anymore because even I was getting bored with my own column.
And then something like this happens. I can deny it no longer. This needs a response.
David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, have demanded a recount for the votes in Ohio. The cost of this process is about $150,000, and they plan to raise the money themselves. My reaction to this: What??!! Why?
Neither the Green Party nor the Libertarian Party has a chance at winning in Ohio. Even if they did, they would have no chance of winning the election.
So let's say that all of this is for John Kerry, and John Kerry does not want his name connected with the act because he already conceded. It has already been declared that a win for John Kerry is "statistically impossible" if all of the ballots in question are recounted.
So what is the purpose? Cobb and Badnarik insist that the recount is to make sure that every vote is counted because of the importance to the democratic process.
I agree that every vote is important, and I certainly agree with the importance of the democratic process. Our democracy is one of the aspects that make our nation so great.
However, in the last two elections, we have begun a dangerous precedent. Politicians prepare ahead of time to contest the results of the election, and the American people prepare ahead of time to wait for the election results. If the results do not come out the way a candidate would like, they dip into their bottomless pockets to pay for a recount.
These are the measures that we are taking to protect the democratic process? We prepare to contest what the people have spoken? We twist what the ballots say to fit our own needs and desires? We "interpret" ballots? We count them, and count them, and count them again until they say what we want them to say?
And then something like this happens. I can deny it no longer. This needs a response.
David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the 2004 presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, have demanded a recount for the votes in Ohio. The cost of this process is about $150,000, and they plan to raise the money themselves. My reaction to this: What??!! Why?
Neither the Green Party nor the Libertarian Party has a chance at winning in Ohio. Even if they did, they would have no chance of winning the election.
So let's say that all of this is for John Kerry, and John Kerry does not want his name connected with the act because he already conceded. It has already been declared that a win for John Kerry is "statistically impossible" if all of the ballots in question are recounted.
So what is the purpose? Cobb and Badnarik insist that the recount is to make sure that every vote is counted because of the importance to the democratic process.
I agree that every vote is important, and I certainly agree with the importance of the democratic process. Our democracy is one of the aspects that make our nation so great.
However, in the last two elections, we have begun a dangerous precedent. Politicians prepare ahead of time to contest the results of the election, and the American people prepare ahead of time to wait for the election results. If the results do not come out the way a candidate would like, they dip into their bottomless pockets to pay for a recount.
These are the measures that we are taking to protect the democratic process? We prepare to contest what the people have spoken? We twist what the ballots say to fit our own needs and desires? We "interpret" ballots? We count them, and count them, and count them again until they say what we want them to say?