Regardless of the winner, the votes should have been recounted in the interest of being absolutley certain that the right person won the election. You seem to imply that there is something wrong with a recount. But if, as you say, Bush would have won anyway, why did he need to block the recount? It's just plain stupid. In an election for the highest office of the one world Super Power, it is only logical to be certain, beyond any doubt, of the winner. By blocking the recount, the Supreme Court has allowed debates like this to take place. I have actually seen statistics that said Gore would have won, as I have seen statistics that Bush would have one. However, that doesn't matter now, but we will be debating this for many years. As an intelligent and logically thinking person, I would be fine with the results of the election if they were verified by a recount (of every vote, none of this selective crap that both parties were trying to do). I would still not agree in the least with Bush's policies, but I would not question his right to rule this country. I would feel the same way if Gore had won but there had been no recount. I would (as a more liberal person) agree more with his policies, but I would always want to know whether he really should be there. Regardless of what the constitution says, it is in the best interest of this nation to insure to the people that our President actually won the election. In the case of the Bush/Gore dilemma, the only way to do this would have been to recount every single vote in Florida. Anyone who says that the votes should not have been recounted is simply being greedy and self-interested and not truly American. Because America is a democracy, and a true American supports that Democracy whether it goes their way or not (as long as it does not infringe on their basic human rights of course).

edited title...

This message last edited by Dai_Shan_NRS2 on 2/1/2003 at 4:24:10 AM.

• Edit 1: 2/1/2003 4:24:10 AM