Stop the Madness
US Supreme Court last bastion of impartiality
By the Cynic
[email protected]
12/11/2000
|
|
|
We
all knew we would be here. This Energizer Bunny of an election could
only be thwarted by the top court in the land, and I'm holding out
hope that the Supreme Court will put an end to what has degraded to a
level of just plain silliness.
I honestly thought that Al Gore would have conceded the election after
the first recount. Well, I'm an idiot. I had underestimated,
once again, the drive in Al Gore to win at all costs. Al Gore should
have conceded after the first recount. Al Gore should have conceded
after partial recounts and certification. Al Gore should have conceded
after the first Supreme Court ruling. Al Gore has had several
opportunities to bow out gracefully, he failed to do so each and every
time. His grasp of the inevitable seems to be absent.
He now continues the fight with the idea that dimpled ballots should
be counted as votes. This is beyond absurdity. If a voter cannot
complete the ballot properly it is an invalid vote. Instructions are
posted at every polling place and assistance was readily available.
Failure to execute the vote properly means failure to vote. I don't
think there is much room for debate here.
Al Gore's claims that he was the winner in the "voter
intent" department is a losing argument. When a candidate decides
to enter an election that is decided by machine counted ballots, the
error rate of those machines leaves you open to the risk of voter
error costing you an election. In other words, when the election is
over, regardless of the closeness of the race, the ending count should
be respected. If the dimples are to be counted in Florida, they should
be counted everywhere else also. This would be the only way to
preserve any electoral integrity. By no means should a dimpled ballot
be counted in Florida, when it would not be counted in other places.
This would be an example of voter disenfranchisement, as the ballots
in New Mexico, or any other state, would not be judged by the same
standards as those in Florida.
As the TV land debate goes forward, you can hear only one unified call
by Gore supporters: "Let every vote count." The Democrats,
as usual, have mastered the sound byte-able catch phrase that allows
them to carry on the fight in the public arena. This is where they
usually leave the GOP in the dust. The Republicans have been on
television and they have been spreading their message, but somehow the
phrase "Yes the votes have been counted, but the onus is on the
voter to properly cast their ballots and we cannot divine the will of
the voter when they didn't complete the ballot," doesn't have
quite the same appealing ring to it. The GOP, as usual, seems
reluctant to form a cohesive message to deliver to the public.
Adding an emotional element to the ballot mess are those who suggest
that it is somehow not fair to Al Gore because many of his votes came
from poor and elderly districts and they have either bad eyesight or
are poorly educated and therefore were less likely to execute the
ballot correctly. Was this not known going in? I believe it to be
common knowledge that the underclass and elderly vote for a Democrat
more likely than not, so Al Gore assumed the risk going in.
Although the merits of the argument may have been lost on the public
(and the media for that matter), it has not been lost on at least 5 of
our US Supreme Court justices. They understand that every county,
every precinct and every state has overvotes, undervotes and no votes.
To use any of these as a reason to contest an election means ignoring
the implied risk of an election that uses machine counted ballots. The
ridiculous ruling by Florida's Supreme Court gave them no choice but
to halt the hand counting of the ballot, before the process was
irreparably damaged.
Although some will tell you it is unfair to label the Florida Supreme
Court justices as partisans, it's impossible not to. When six out of
seven identify with one party, and have to seek reelection with
funding from that party, and when they consistently rule in the favor
of the candidate from that party, then they are partisan, plain and
simple. As elected officials, they are married to their party. They
have to be if they want to have the funding to win reelection.
There have been many references to a possible "partisan
split" in any US Supreme Court ruling. Luckily, the Supreme Court
cannot be partisan. While each Justice may be married to their own
respective ideologies, the fact that they are confirmed for life means
that their marriage to their political party ends upon their
confirmation. Upon taking office, they essentially sever all bonds to
the political world, as they no longer need to be politicians and will
no longer require any funds or favors to keep their seat.
As always, the Supreme Court has its work cut out for it. Every time
the Court speaks it sets a precedent. History awaits their judgments.
The integrity of the Institution stands before them waiting for them
to act on their convictions. I may not be happy with the outcome of
this ruling, but I will accept it. I hope that the parties involved
feel the same way. It's time to end this madness.
Receive new column
updates and many extras by signing up for the Cynic's newsletter: Click
here
Today's featured
columns:
Brian 'Kingfish'
Trascher knows 4 Gore candidates for the Supreme Court
Dorothy Anne Seese
thinks this will show you not to vote
Bret Hrbek on why we
need the electoral college
Ron
Marr tells everyone, "You're not the boss of
me."
Join
the conversation about the election...
© The Cynic, 2000
Home
View expressed are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Political
USA.
