No Election Crisis: ‘Count the Votes’

If George Skelton is correct in his Nov. 30 Capitol Journal, neither George W. Bush or Al Gore could even request a recount in California until Dec. 5, 28 days after the election. And then, if the candidate is willing to foot the bill, the recount would have to be done (excuses, demonstrations and lawsuits be damned). Why is it, then, that the spin doctors are trying to convince the American public that this controversy has been dragging on too long in Florida and that that state must choose the man who held the lead on Nov. 14 to avoid a “constitutional crisis”? Hey, on Tuesday we might see the beginning of a new recount here in our lovely state and it would be absolutely legal.

Let’s just count the votes in Florida accurately and efficiently so that whoever takes office can have the confidence that he at least won the electoral vote.

JILL LEIGHTON

Glendale

*

Max Page’s Nov. 29 commentary (“The Votes We Traded to Get ‘Clean’ Machines”) points out that the U.S. has a long history of “cleaning up” our voting procedures to ensure the maintenance of the status quo. This history underlies the existence of a perennial consensus permeating both major parties: to uphold continued economic growth in the “free world,” regardless of long-term ecological dangers; and to maintain sufficient military power to assure this continued economic growth.

The differences between the two major parties are on relatively minor questions about how the benefits of this growth will be allocated between different sectors of the population. Thus, who becomes president will not greatly affect our policies, either foreign or domestic. So relax, everyone, and just enjoy the show.

LARRY SELK

Los Angeles

*

It is utterly unreasonable to declare Bush a winner with less than one-hundredth of a percent plurality (537 out of 6 million votes), when the margin of error in counting votes in Florida is much higher. Besides, the whole concept of winning by plurality is undemocratic. In case no one gets more than 50% of the votes, the electorate should decide who is the winner by selecting between the two top vote-getters in a runoff election.

The remedy for the deficiencies of the current system is to abandon our archaic electoral system in favor of a popular vote count, as most true democracies do, so we don’t have a president certified a winner but rejected by the majority of voters.

MARCEL GAWARTIN

Ladera Heights

*

In order for the Florida Legislature to do the right thing, it should appoint electors in proportion to the popular vote. It would be fair, democratic and over in a flash.

DAVID L. EASTMAN

Costa Mesa

*

David S. Olson (letter, Dec. 1) writes that given the closeness of the race, it would be fairer if Florida appointed 13 Republican electors and 12 Democrat electors. I agree. While we’re at it, let’s give Dubya 2 of New Mexico’s 5 electoral votes, 5 of Wisconsin’s 11, 3 of Iowa’s 7, 3 of Oregon’s, 11 of Pennsylvania’s, and let’s not forget, 23 of California’s 54.

JEFF BISHOP

Culver City

*

With regard to the situation in Florida, the Democrats are, once again, practicing the politics of condescension and low expectations. According to them, but for their “helping hand,” blacks and elderly Jewish voters aren’t capable of voting as they intended. Once again, because the Republicans believe in personal responsibility, it is they who are painted as insensitive. The Democrats encourage dependence (rule by the “anointed”) to retain power; the Republicans encourage the corollaries of freedom, and yet it is somehow the Republicans who are “mean-spirited.”

How is it that the spin always goes in this direction? Certainly it couldn’t be a reflection of the mainstream media’s overwhelmingly liberal bias.

JOEL CHERMAN

Studio City

*

I had three choices for grapefruit at the market: Florida, Texas and California. After thinking about Jeb and George W., I quickly selected the California ones. The other two would leave a bitter taste in my mouth.

FRANCESCA DAVIS

Culver City