Opinion: Election finality shouldn't come before fairness

To say "let's get on with it" is to reveal a selfish impatience, no matter what you're talking about. But when the election of a new president of the United States is what you're talking about, then this impatience becomes an arrogance that profanes the almost sacred nature of selecting a new leader of the free world. What on Earth is the hurry?

In this column, Gailey surprisingly not only expressed his angst but also assumed we all share his pain: "One of these candidates will have to put us out of our misery." Why is trying to determine the winner of an unbelievably close election a miserable experience? For me, it is an intellectual joy to witness the fundamental soundness of our Constitution as it weathers the storms of democracy in action.

He continued, "It may not be fair, but it will be in the best interest of the nation. It's not the way we wanted to see this election end, but we are ready for it to end -- even if it means putting finality ahead of justice" (my emphasis). It may not be fair? Why even think that? The best interest of the nation? We are ready for it? Once again, Gailey reinforces his views with the assumed agreement of everyone else.

Here's a heads-up: It isn't in my best interest and I'm not ready for it. To read "finality ahead of justice" was breathtaking. Literally. How could a writer of Gailey's reputation even think such a heretical thought? That's no different than a juror saying, "Let's convict. I'm tired. To hell with justice." That's wrong.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin

Don't be fooled by Democratic rhetoric

Re: Courts will bring us fair conclusion, by Bob Graham, Dec. 2.

I bet there were people who read this column and told themselves how reasonable and fair-minded it sounded. Those people would be wrong. Why? Because couched in those paragraphs was a subtle attempt to convince us that it's okay for the Democratic Party to continue pushing lawsuit after lawsuit in its attempt to overturn Florida's election results.

For all their posturing about the will of the people and every vote counts, the Democrats are suing to accomplish two goals: Find more votes for Al Gore and throw out as many votes for George W. Bush as possible.

The predicament for the Democrats is that to accomplish these goals, they have to trample the U.S. and Florida constitutions, Florida statutes, the state courts, a few state officials, the state Legislature and a number of county election boards. Why? Well, for the people, of course. Yeah, right.

Sen. Graham's column was a well-concealed attempt to allay growing public concern over the real agenda of the Democratic Party. Perhaps he might consider the public's reaction if, when all the chads settle, the Democrats are given the opportunity to plow through a few million votes and somehow manage to find the one elusive vote that would give Gore a majority. What then? Does he really believe that the nation will heave a collective sigh of relief and anoint Gore as the president-elect? Can he be that naive? I certainly hope not.

We, the people, have witnessed the increasingly shrill and hysterical tactics employed by the Democratic Party to overturn this election. We, the people, have witnessed lawyers for Al Gore lie in court for their client. And we, the people, no longer believe this is about us. This is about Al Gore's hunger for personal power. Sen. Graham's attempt to mask these abuses is ill-conceived.

Overturning this election would be disastrous for we, the people. Voters would no longer decide elections; lawyers and courts would decide elections. The will of the people would be supplanted by the will of those with the money to hire the lawyers to litigate the outcome of the election.

No matter how thoughtful Sen. Graham's column may seem, he cannot conceal the fact that this is exactly what the Democratic Party wants, no matter what the damage to our electoral process.
-- Greg Daniel, Esq., Clearwater

Process in need of repairs

The positive outcome of the election tragedy is universal recognition of how bad our processes are, and not just in Florida. I hope that state and federal leaders act quickly to fix things before the next election. The logically challenged are still chortling over Palm Beach County voter confusion and insisting that nothing was wrong with the ballot format. They blame the victims. They may think that only Democrats are dumb enough to be so easily confused.

Top Bush operatives are not so naive and know that, had the candidate names been listed in a different order, with Al Gore at the top and George Bush mixed in with others coming from both left and right, thousands of intended Bush voters would have made the same honest errors. In that case, Gore voters would have clearly marked their intentions and Gore would have easily won. They also know that Bush was not the choice of a majority of Florida voters and are thankful for the poor judgment of Palm Beach County election officials who approved a bad design, which should have never seen the light of day.

They are also thankful that their guy was listed at the top. The fact that similar ballots have been used in other districts, means only that large numbers of voters have unknowingly been disenfranchised in many elections.

It took a mess like this to highlight the problems, not only of ballot design, but also of error-prone systems, e.g. punch cards, incomplete voter lists at polls and the inability of poll workers to determine voter status, inadequate instruction of poll workers, lack of cross-checking procedures to eliminate multiple registrations, etc. It will take a cooperative effort by the 50 states and the feds to produce an acceptable fix.
-- Joseph F. Bohren, Tampa

Different counts give a different story

Re: Incomplete results, letter, Dec. 6.

If we count the military's absentee ballots, many of which were disallowed thus disenfranchising our military, it is probable that Al Gore will prove to have actually lost the popular vote in the United States. In California alone, there were more than enough absentee ballots not counted to accomplish this. There is no evidence to support the arguement that a recount of Florida would show Gore to be the victor.

Palm Beach County has been counted and recounted by far looser standards than were used for most of the state's ballots. A revote in Palm Beach County would be prejudicial, as the voters would be voting in a different situation from the rest of the state.

Let us not forget that after the networks prematurely announced Gore had won the state while the Panhandle polls were still open, thousands of Floridians there did not vote. If this had not happened, Bush likely would have gained thousands of votes from this area. So let us add in the disenfranchised Panhandle and military voters, and, magically, we will have a completely different story.
-- Barbara and Deborah Butler, Belleair Beach

Candidates should want a recount

Who is the true winner? This is the question that is on the minds of millions of voters. Questions like "Who is stealing this election?" must be answered. You may hear the rhetoric of the lawyers, the judges, the board members of the voting districts, the secretary of state and all the others involved in this process and still not come up with a direct and truthful answer. Only the two candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore, can supply the answer. I would not want to be in either one's shoes.

Bush claims to be the winner. He denies Gore the counting of the ballots. Deadlines were not extended, lawsuits were filed, votes left uncounted and dozens of other incidents prevailed. Where is Bush's integrity? Where is his trust in the people?

Both Bush and Gore want to be president. Both men, with their lawyers, seem to apply everything to the rule of law. Legally, every vote should be counted. In our democracy, "majority rules."

Let all the votes be counted and the candidate with the most votes be declared the next president. In an election where 50-million voted and the unofficial winner has a plurality of around 500 votes, I believe both would want a recount. That would be the fairest way.
-- John Gers, Inverness

Gore deserves respect

Re: Election tactics creates more cynicism, Dec. 5.

Rena Pederson says Al Gore's tactics have made her more cynical about politicians. Her column makes me more cynical about journalists. As Gore's chances of victory become more and more slim, more and more reporters are criticizing his tactics. This looks to me like the "go with a winner" strategy. The fact remains that Gore won the popular vote nationwide. And it is fairly clear that in Florida more voters went to the polls with the intention of voting for Gore than for George W. Bush.

If Bush takes the White House, so be it. In fact, in my opinion, we could do worse. But, win lose or draw, Al Gore has put up a good fight in behalf of those of us who voted for him. The man merits your respect!
-- Garth Wayne Gairrett, Tampa

Doing a disservice to the military

An end, at last, is in sight for this siege on our election system. As a person who served my nation in two wars and nearly 30 years of naval service, I shall never forget, nor forgive, one aspect of this experience. Presidential candidate Al Gore, with the key leaders of the Democratic Party, marched in lock step in their efforts to disenfranchise the absentee ballots of our service personnel.

Why? Because they apparently believed these people, who are daily fulfilling their oath to protect, defend and preserve our Constitution, were suspect. Suspected of what? Voting their preference as to whom they favored to be our next president.

Above all else, this, in my view, constituted these politicians' most despicable act.
-- John C. MacKercher, retired captain, U.S. Navy, Brooksville

Who should be punished?

Supporters of Al Gore have filed a complaint in one county complaining that Republican campaign workers were allowed to "tamper with" ballots by adding a registration number to the ballot application. They claim that these were illegal acts and that the ballots should not be allowed.

Let's think about this for a moment.

There are four parties involved in the alleged unlawful actions: Nos. 1 and 2 are the candidate and the voter. Nos. 3 and 4 are the campaign workers and the election officials.

Let's assume that the actions complained of actually did occur and that there has, in fact, been a violation of election law or procedure. If so, who should be punished? The candidate who earned the voter's approval? The voter who cast his or her ballot in good faith? Or should we bring the campaign workers and the election officials to trial for their "illegal acts"?

If you believe, as the Gore people do, that the ballots should be disallowed, you are giving us a strong push down the slippery slope created by the Florida Supreme Court. You are, in fact, saying that we can and should punish those who disagree with our politics for acts that they did not commit and of which they had no knowledge. Is this really the standard that we wish to see applied by our courts?
-- W.A. Broderick, Tampa

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page