I just read in the Washington Post that in addition to Ohio, there will be recounts in Nevada and New Mexico of the vote for president earlier this month. Honestly, I think it should be left alone. I think it would be fascinating if those states turned out to be incorrectly awarded to President Bush, but I doubt it would change the result. Have those elections already been certified by their respective secretaries of state? (I'm assuming that is the proper person to do so.) It's a minor story right now, because the major media venues likely don't believe anything can come of this. I know I don't, and I'm just a minor media person.
If someone is willing to use their own money -- not tax money -- to fund a recount, I'm all for it. But the greater issue is whether it's a proper use of county resources. This argument has weight. I'm curious whether volunteers could handle this. Personally, I doubt it because such volunteers would be viewed as politically opportunistic and untrustworthy. At least I'd be skeptical.
If there were questions of a flawed election with the gravity of what appears to have occurred in Ukraine, then of course it should be recounted. I have to believe the push for an Ohio recount isn't based on the early polls. I don't know about anyone else, but I was one Democrat who was eager to vote early that Tuesday morning. I suspect many were, judging by the lines that existed in polls throughout the nation. I'm disappointed in the result, but we move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment