Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Rossi won the first count by hundreds.
Rossi won the recount by 42.
Gregoire won the second recount by about 200. During that recount, several thousand "lost" ballots were "found". Democratic election judges examined ballots again, for "intent", and switched quite a few to Gregoire, including quite a few in which BOTH candidates' names were blackened. ("She voted for a Democratic city hall candidate, so she MUST have meant to vote for Gregoire.")
It's a little . . . . strange.
|
Frankly, I think we should go to the British system on recounts. Which is - there are none. (Of course, that is partly because there are no long transition periods between British governments in which recounts could take place.) In any election where the margin is sufficiently slim that a recount could matter, the results probably fall within the margin of error, and the recount itself will just produce other results that fall within the margin of error. And, since most recounts are done by hand, they tend to be less accurate than initial automated counts, and thus have an even larger margin of error. And, if there are recounts at all, the losing side has an incentive to keep asking for multiple recounts until they get one favoring their side. Which they eventually will, just as a statistical probability. And that result will be no more legitimate, and very probably less legitimate, than the original tally.
