Q:  So why not separate the votes into piles -- hanging chads for Gore, indentations for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one candidate or the other -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted before determining who won?  Then, if some ballots (say, indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know right away who won Florida?

A: Great idea!  An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult problem!  The US Supreme Court rejected it. They held in stopping the count on December 9 that such counts would be likely to produce election results showing Gore won and that Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance" and that would "cast a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would harm "democratic stability."

Q:  In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?

A:  Yes.

Q:  Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? Or a political one?

A:  Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this reason has no basis in law. But that didn't stop the five conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.

Q:  Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count the votes afterward?

A:  The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on December 12.

Q:  Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for arbitrarily setting a deadline?

A:  Yes. 

Q:  But, but...

A:  Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws it sets for other courts.

Q:  Tell me this, are Florida's election laws unconstitutional?

A:  Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the Legislature drafted the law in such an unfair way that the Florida votes can never be fairly counted.

Q:  Are the election laws of any of the other 49 states unconstitutional as well?

A:  Yes, if one logically applies the Supreme Court opinion. The voters of the 50 states use different systems and standards to vote, and 33 states have the same "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.

Q:  Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?

A:  Um.  Because…um…..the Supreme Court doesn't say…

Q:   But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't know who really won the election there, right?

A:  Right.  But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won Florida by about 23,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).  See http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/104268.htm

Q:  So, what do we do? Count under a single uniform standard? Have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state?

A:  No. As there's no time for a re-vote or a re-count based on the non-binding "deadline", the Supreme Court will just choose itself who will be President, and it picks Bush to win 5-4, based on the flawed count it just called unconstitutional.

Next page > Part 5 > Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6