One Step Back, Two steps Forward

Where do I begin, to tell the story ....

Not sure I can.  

Anyway...The explanation of how the recent mess happened is out.  The why it happened may take a much longer time.  

The current cry is for an entirely new election.  I don't see that happening and quite frankly don't believe it should happen.  Indeed, the only ballots that there should be any questions about should be the seven "rejects" (sorry I have been using the less than state of the art term "spit outs").

I imagine based on the rhetoric now streaming from everywhere that ultimately some judge will tell us whether those 7 should be counted.  I haven't dug to deep into the research.  To be honest I have just kind of scratched the surface.  Not going to either.  

At this point my focus is elsewhere.

Do the number of ballots match up to the number of people who went to the polls?

If that question is answered yes, then just recount the ballots?

If yes, than quite frankly, again at this point no one, and I mean no one, from what I have heard should be questioning the machine tally as to the votes that were run through the voting machines.  If you feel the machines might have miscounted, well that's why there is a hand count re-count provision.

Based solely on the machines, that would mean the challenger would have a 3 vote lead over the incumbent before dealing with the rejects.

Whether the remaining 7 ballots are valid is not a decision you or I get to make, nor is the fact that they may or may not change the outcome by itself a reason to throw them out.  

Quite frankly of those 7 only 2 should even be in question at this point.

Speaking of reason, let's all find some reasonable grounds for all the stuff being spit out besides the ballots.

This is not going to develop into a legal discussion over the interpretation of the laws and regulations governing elections being bandied about, nor the other laws and regulations no one seems to be banding about.  

Why not?  First: I am not representing anybody.  Second: I am not getting paid to represent anybody.  Third:  What I think, or what you think about the meaning of the same in the end doesn't matter.  

The candidates in the first instance must decide what they are going to do.  Next step, it falls to the people with jurisdiction over the elections to make the decision.  Then if someone disagrees they can go to the people who wear the black robes to make the decision whether the other people were right.

Because of that "chain of command", can we please just stop all the shouting about holding a new election.

I could be completely wrong, there could actually be something I am missing, however I can find no authority which grants anyone the legal grounds on the local level to throw out the entire vote and have the popular "do-over". 

It really is that simple.  

Just as simple is the explanation as to how this mess started in the first place.  

Inexcusable, but nonetheless still simple.  

You may be shaking your head about it, you may be wondering how the "how" could actually happen, and I would be joining you in that.  But I just don't see how you could make up that explanation, or why you would.

It shouldn't have happened.  There shouldn't have been any of what went on.  I absolute concur and agree.  

At this point though, for me solely as a resident, what I am looking at is a total of 7 ballots cast that could be questioned. As mentioned, even that number should be dwindled to two.  

Questions like "how do we know" and "what if" aren't enough to invalidate any election, or shouldn't be in my opinion.

If you have proof of ballot stuffing, tampering whatever, PLEASE put if forth.  I most definitely would want to know that.  I would at that time most definitely be with you.

If there is no proof, then all we have is a bungled initial and second count.  You can question the third all you want, however if there is no fraud then if the number of voters tallied equal the number of ballots cast, it is what it is.

A now two vote margin, anything that close, should be subject to a recount, however that procedure is clearly outlined under the law, and the decision as to whether it happens isn't ours to make.  

Is the vote tainted?  

It is only tainted if you reasonably believe someone tampered with the ballots.  It really does come down to that.

Do not create fraud simply out of conjecture or a desired result. 

I heard a bunch of questions attempting to cast doubt yesterday, and I was totally surprised to hear absolutely none of the questions I would have thought would have been asked. 

No, I am not going to tell you those.  Why not?  See reasons First and Second for why I am not getting into the legal discussion.  For this particular point, reason Third is I have heard enough to be satisfied that it wasn't the votes that were tainted, just the initial counting(s).

As part of that, I will add that everyone, winners and losers, the voters, the residents, each and every one has the absolute right to be upset over what happened.  This never should have happened.  

But the mess in getting to the final tally does not negate the finally tally.

Up until yesterday's public meeting, one can understand a whole lot of what was said.  You can understand the talk.  After yesterday, nothing written here is going to change some opinions.  

If you want to reject the explanation, if you want to challenge the explanation, do what you feel you have to do.  For me the "What ifs" don't constitute sufficient grounds, or even come close to it, to reject the explanation.  

If you want a recount, no one is going to question that.  No one should.  Even without this total mess, with a two vote margin it would be expected.  

After the recount, the loser whoever it may be is going to have plenty of ammunition to continue the PR battle, but I doubt it will lead to anything more than shots simply fired in the air.  If I was forced to make a bet, the smart money would be on the "over" line, i.e. except for the recount, this one is over.

In the long run, I submit an old political philosophy for consideration, one that goes back many years, even many more than the person usually associated with the "quote".  Sometimes it is better to take one step back today, so you can move two steps forward tomorrow.

Sometimes it is best to do that not only for political gain, but because it is the right thing to do.  

Believe it or not, sometimes both those things can go hand in hand.

After the recount, hopefully people will consider that.