<HTML>In a message dated 12/1/00 12:15:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, remoody@midstatesd.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">> > >   In the Fla. recount  Bush's lead is > >now down to 500 votes from 1,500.  So with 10,000 votes uncounted, (ones the > >machines rejected for whatever reasons) > > Those ballots were counted twice by machine, and votes for other offices > recorded.  Many had no vote for president.  I submit that, had there been > the choice, "non-of-the-above" would have won by a landslide. > Conrad Hoffsommer With a only 500 vote difference and 10,000 votes (I think this is only two counties) unable to be counted by machine what is the big deal about counting them by humans?  But if not counted manually it will ever be on the minds of millions, did Bush really win?  Bush could have said, "count those votes, if I am to win it must be clear and decisive".  It would take a very bold leader to say this but what else can an effective "moral" leader say? By opposing recounts he appears to be impeding the democratic process thus begging the question; "Is he afraid to face the truth"? >I submit that, had there been > the choice, "non-of-the-above" would have won by a landslide. There is no need for "non of the above" to be on ballots because that is exactly the vote of those who do not show up at  the polls. > > The whole election will be a moot point, anyway.  Both houses are pretty > evenly divided, and now extremely polarized by this post-election campaign. > Whoever wins will never be able to lead a gridlocked congress. > Conrad, IF the perception prevails that the election was finally won fair and square then I think the country will be behind the President.  The US Supreme Court is supposed to rule tomorrow.  They can say it is up the the States to control the elections, or they can say no law,  person or process can impede the casting  or the counting of ballots.  ---ric </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The votes have been counted, 2-3 times and Bush is still ahead. Those 10,000 undervotes you mention, why count them? How can a manual count determine the voters intent? Maybe the voter did not like either candidate and left it blank. I would not want someone to change my ballot if I left it blank. And the more the ballots are handled, the more problems occur, like accidentally punching out a chad. Plus there is no precident on how to do a manual recount. How can it be fair from county to county, when they make up the rules as they go? And this is democracy?</BLOCKQUOTE>   Sorry, but if I were Bush, I would object to such tactics as well.   I will be glad when this is settled and pianos become to main focus.  Dave Peake, RPT  Portland Chapter  Oregon City, OR  www.davespianoworks.locality.com</HTML>