I don't see why anyone hasn't made an analogy
between the recount situation and protest
resolutions.
Why don't we resolve every protest? Let's say the
difference that can result from a protest resolution is a 50
point swing in the score. If team A pummels team B by
500 points, we don't really need to resolve the
protest--the outcome will not be in doubt. However, if team A
ekes out a win by 25 points, then resolving the
protest is paramount to ensuring a fair result. It
doesn't matter how long it takes--without all the
information necessary to resolve the protest, neither side
should be asking the other to give up the game.
The Bush campaign strategy of trying to coerce a
concession from Gore is wrong-headed: in an election this
close, both sides should wait. It's not as if the
electoral college vote is tomorrow, or the inauguration is
next week--yet.
If the Bush team wants to
recount votes in other states, let them. This race is too
important to be decided simply by computer projections and
expectations from past elections. However, if Bush decides to
protest the vote in MA or DC, for example, then somebody
should give Baker a smack "upside the head."
:-)
--AEI