The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Campaign Crawlers
Print Email
Text Size

Campaign Crawlers

The Ohio Recount Outrage

Recounts are for states like Washington where the gubernatorial race was virtual dead heat, not for a state where the recounters’ hero lost by some 117,000 votes.

(Page 2 of 2)

At this point it isn’t clear if the gubernatorial race will be decided by the January deadline. Washington state absolutely has grounds for a hand recount. Moreover, you can’t blame the Democrats for wanting to get those disputed ballots counted. Were the shoe on the other foot Republicans would be doing the same thing. This is a race where the results may indeed change because of the recount. When millions of voters cast their ballots and the result is that close, whatever cost is required to find out who really won is absolutely justified. The officials of both parties who are active in that recount are not meddling; they are performing a public service.

If you compare the Washington state experience with that in Ohio, it is a study in contrasts.

In Ohio there is no chance to overturn the result. In Washington State there is a real possibility that the result will be overturned.

In Ohio the leftists who raised the money for the recount are first-class meddlers. In Washington State only both major parties are involved.

In Ohio the desired result of the organizers of the recount is to discredit the system. In Washington state the desired of the party officials involved in the recount is to strengthen the democratic process — namely, to reassure citizens that every single vote counts.

There have been examples of recounts waged in order to steal the election from the rightful winner. The Wisconsin legislature’s famous Olson-Elfers recount in 1960 rigged the election in favor of Republican Olson. Likewise, in the Democratic Congress’ recount of the 8th District of Indiana in 1984 (the recount extended into 1985) Democrats stole the House seat from Republican Rick McIntyre, the rightful victor.

However, most recounts are honest. In most states recounts are required when the result separates the major candidates by less than one percent of the vote. Recounts when the vote separating the major candidates is more than 200 almost never change the results. But that is not always the case. Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) was thought to have won his re-election bid in 2000 but the recount reversed the results and today Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has his seat.

In short, ordinarily recounts are a regular process to insure that close elections are properly counted. That is why Ohio is such an outrage. That recount is only for the purpose of making trouble. There ought to be a law outlawing that kind of recount.

Page:   12

topics:
Law, Supreme Court, NATO

About the Author

Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

Letter to the Editor

Related Articles

More Articles by Paul M. Weyrich

More Articles From Campaign Crawlers

http://spectator.org/archives/2004/12/13/the-ohio-recount-outrage

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT