Excuse me? How was the Michigan primary fair? Barack Obama wasn’t even on the ballot! How does that constitute a fair election? That sounds more like the approach some Eastern Bloc country would use. Any Hillary supporters out there care to explain what’s fair about a ballot that doesn’t list all the candidates?
In Florida, both candidates were on the ballot but neither had campaigned there and the voters knew in advance that their votes wouldn’t count. That hardly sounds like a a legitimate, “fair” election either. How many people stayed home because they didn’t think their vote would count? How many would have voted differently if there had been an active campaign in Florida?
Meantime, the nation is abuzz as both Florida and Michigan try to come up with acceptable plans for “do-over” elections, on the assumption that somebody somewhere will declare such do-overs valid. Just today, Florida officials announced a) that they would have a mail-in vote, and then, b) that their voters didn’t want a mail-in vote.
If either state employs a method other than what their voters are accustomed to, all sorts of unforeseen variables will be introduced and render any result “abnormal.” Not the least of these is the voters’ perception of the candidates on the day of the do-over versus what their perception might have been on the normal election date. There is no way to accurately re-create what might have been.
This brings us back to the original premise that the rules were set before the game started, and the players agreed to abide by them. The only fair thing to do now is abide by those rules, not try to rewrite them in the middle of the game.
© 2008 PiedType.com. Some rights reserved.