November 17, 2004

Oh, The Shame!

My party's candidate, Michael Badnarik and Green party member David Cobb have raised enough money to get a full recount in the sate of Ohio.
Badnarik and Cobb said they aren't trying to overturn President Bush's 136,000-vote victory in Ohio, but just want to ensure that all votes were counted properly in the face of concerns about Election Day irregularities.

"Our bottom line is to stand up for the integrity of the voting process because the voting process is the heart of the democratic process," said Blair Bobier, spokesman for Cobb.

Bobier said it will be worth the price to ensure the final outcome can be trusted.

Okay, first of all...Bullshit. This recount benefits neither man, unless somehow 150,000 votes thought to be cast for one of the two major candidates were actually cast for Badnarik or Cobb. I suspect that their reason for doing this is the very one they deny: They want to overturn Bush's victory in Ohio.

Secondly, I'm all for the "integrity of the voting process." Show me a perfect, fraud-free method of voting and I'll sign right up. Heck, everybody wants that. But what I don't want, and what the country doesn't need is weeks or months of recounts, and legal maneuvering. Even the recounts aren't free from influence. Take Florida in 2000. Much of the "recount" consisted of people looking at a ballot and trying to figure out who the voter was trying to vote for. That's impartial? I'll bet you that recounters who supported Bush found more Bush votes than those recounters who supported Gore. They weren't cheating; that's just human nature: "Everybody thinks like I do." Anyway, to get back to my point, suppose this re-count goes against Bush. Do we then allow him pay the fee and get a recount of the recount? At some point it has to end. Do we allow recounts on other closely contested states? Please...Bush won the popular vote, the electoral vote, the Republicans won seats in the legislature...The people have spoken. It's over; let it go.

There are many people out there who will tell you they believe in Democracy. But they don't. They only believe in it when the outcome goes their way. If you see someone protesting the re-election of President Bush, that person does not believe in Democracy. Free speech, maybe, but not Democracy. You see, believing in Democracy means understanding that things aren't always going to go your way, and accepting them when they don't. As much as I dislike John Kerry, I will give him credit for this: he conceded. I honestly thought he would be worse than Gore, dragging the election out for months. But he did the right thing. Good for him.

Anyway, I'm ashamed that my party's leader is the one leading this course of action, and I'm ashamed that he can't be honest about his motives.

No comments:

Post a Comment