It didn't take long
The New York Times today editorializes on the Democrats' failed objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes. Yesterday I remarked that following the vote count, liberals would attempt to de-legitimize President Bush's re-election. The Times does just that today:
"Democrats were obviously most vocal about the sloppy and highhanded way the election was run in many places, but the Republicans should also object. Mr. Bush won the most votes, but he has been deprived of universal confidence in the way they were counted."
Well, if your universe is the editorial page of the Times, that may be true. But for most Americans -- and even, as the Times notes, many Democrats who spoke yesterday -- there is little doubt that Bush fairly won the election.
Elections are events conducted by human beings, subject to all of the failings and imperfections that we all suffer daily. It is unlikely that there has ever been an election for president in which some errors weren't made. But the definition of an error, justifying counting a specific vote, changes depending on your perspective. Is it an error if other races on the ballot have a candidate marked, but the presidential race has no choice marked? Is it an error, justifying placing the ballot in a single candidate's column, if more than one candidate is marked on the ballot? Is it an error, rising to a constitutional violation, if an individual has to stand in a long line while waiting to vote? (I was under the impression that we encouraged voter participation in this country, but I am beginning to wonder, considering all of the complaints about long lines at the polls that were voiced yesterday.)
The answers to these questions, in a logical universe, would be "no." But that is not the universe of the Times.
"Democrats were obviously most vocal about the sloppy and highhanded way the election was run in many places, but the Republicans should also object. Mr. Bush won the most votes, but he has been deprived of universal confidence in the way they were counted."
Well, if your universe is the editorial page of the Times, that may be true. But for most Americans -- and even, as the Times notes, many Democrats who spoke yesterday -- there is little doubt that Bush fairly won the election.
Elections are events conducted by human beings, subject to all of the failings and imperfections that we all suffer daily. It is unlikely that there has ever been an election for president in which some errors weren't made. But the definition of an error, justifying counting a specific vote, changes depending on your perspective. Is it an error if other races on the ballot have a candidate marked, but the presidential race has no choice marked? Is it an error, justifying placing the ballot in a single candidate's column, if more than one candidate is marked on the ballot? Is it an error, rising to a constitutional violation, if an individual has to stand in a long line while waiting to vote? (I was under the impression that we encouraged voter participation in this country, but I am beginning to wonder, considering all of the complaints about long lines at the polls that were voiced yesterday.)
The answers to these questions, in a logical universe, would be "no." But that is not the universe of the Times.
posted by Hal | 10:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home