Election by litigation

[Deja Q]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6314991/site/newsweek/

Excerpt:

Election by litigation is a sensationally bad idea. Undertaken piously to guarantee voters' "rights" or to prevent "fraud," it would erode popular confidence in elections' integrity. We'd be bombarded (as we already are) by endless complaints about how compromised or corrupt voting practices have become. Sooner or later, many Americans might cynically conclude that the side with the busiest poll watchers, cleverest lawyers and friendliest judges had secured an unfair advantage.

I dare say there's a 90% chance there's going to be litigation, even if the numbers are clearly ahead for either candidate. Especially with no-paper-trail electronic voting, and the criminally incompetent/negligent Jeb Bush's record with voting in the state he is SUPPOSED to govern.

No wonder many people gave up on voting. More sure as hell will depending on the outcome of Nov 2, 2004 (especially if * wins, as he'll abolish it all after another allowed terrorist attack, spun to make him look like our savior while pinning the blame on everybody else who got him the intelligence.)