Apparently the Bush campaign have said that John Kerry "should concede to spare the voters a drawn-out battle".
When was the result of a democratic election decided by one party telling another party to concede? Surely the way to decide a democratic election result is to count the votes. It amazes me that either party has anything to say about who's winning. Shouldn't the chief vote-counter be the one to talk first?
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Only because it looks very much like Kerry can't even mathematically win now. There are less provisional ballots in Ohio than the difference between the two candidates. Ergo, Bush has won. Taking it to court would be a frivolous waste of time.
It doesn't matter. The candidates shouldn't say anything. The chief vote-counter should make an announcement when he or she has finished counting. That's all. That's how democracy works. Its decided by number of votes. Not who concedes, who claims it first or who goes to court. Its one person, one vote and they count them and announce the winner.
What's wrong with declaring victory when you're sure you've won?
Of course all the votes should be counted, and they will, but when you've won, you've won.
Post a Comment