The continuing electoral
conflicts devalue the voting process
Brian L. Broussard
The Florida Supreme Court ruling does not
surprise me in the least. The media and Florida's court system are exceptionally
biased in the favor of Vice President Al Gore. Everyone knows that, and
if any one denies this, it is wishful thinking with a heavy dose of naiveté.
Short of total collusion and an all out
conspiracy, I don't think two prominent groups could work more blatantly
hand-in-hand to any greater degree with the hopes of changing the outcome
of a presidential election.
The individuals holding the power to make
decisions are all decidedly Democratic, and it should not be viewed, in
my opinion, as a coincidence that the rulings to date have heavily favored
Gore to the point that everyone watching knows that the election is being
wrestled away from Gov. George W. Bush and handed to Gore on a silver platter
by his party affiliates in the courts.
I don't want to cast dispersions on possible
cognizant misconduct by the Democratic judges, but party loyalties run
deep, convoluting judgments and affecting decisions subconsciously.
The chaotic deterioration of the election
is one of the most repugnant sights I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing.
The hypocrisy displayed in the whole "recount" process is astonishingly
I have heard, more times than I can count
"It's the will of the people, all the votes should count."
This assessment just isn't true in the
Gore camp. For Gore, and all his supporters, the only votes they want to
count are the ones that will allow him to beat Bush. How anyone can, with
good conscience, try to argue the merits of a secret ballot insinuating
that the intent of the voter can be determined is ludicrous.
It is impossible to determine the voters'
intent even on legally executed ballots. A vote for Bush could be a vote
for Bush, or a vote against Gore. A vote for Ralph Nader could be a vote
for Nader or a vote against the normative establishment.
For a judge to listen to such a trivial
and inconsequential argument as to allow ballots because arguable intent
can be discerned should be impeached and disbarred from ever practicing
I am proud of my participation in the election
process and have no qualms letting anyone know whom I voted for. If the
tone of the article did not make it explicitly clear, I will -- I voted
If the Gore camp truly wanted to embrace
the "will of the people" and ensure that each and every vote counted, they
would not have selected just three heavily Democratic counties to mandate
They would have said, "We need to have
a hand count of the entire state of Florida because we feel every vote
Better yet, the Gore camp should have demanded
a hand count for the entire nation, you know, to ensure every vote counted.
I know, it sounds as if I am being flippant toward the recounts.
I am not against recounting the votes at
all. I am against a specifically targeted recount with the sole purpose
of manifesting a higher vote count for the loser of the election.
A standard for counting ballots had been
established previous to this election. The parameters dictated for allowing
recounts were also set before the presidential elections, but it seems
the laws are not being followed in their true spirit.
The necessary conditions for declaring
a ballot valid have changed three times already, with the Gore camp wanting
to include ballots with indentations, not even perforated chads. These
are not legitimate ballots, and the intent of the voter cannot be determined
with any degree of accuracy, nor should any court declare such a ballot
What about the 1,000 absentee ballots that
were summarily dismissed because the postmark on the envelope did not meet
the Nov. 7 deadline as stated by law? Do you think Gore is expending any
energy to lobby to include those votes?
Of course he isn't, because he realizes
a great number of those votes, possibly an overwhelming majority of them,
will be for Bush.
So much for the election process in America,
it really is a disheartening experience.