George W. Bush won this election fair and square. There was a count, which he won. There was a recount, which he also won. But there has been no concession, only griping.
Many call the Florida recounts, ridiculous. They are. Gore claims this is a way of hearing every voice, yet he has only chosen the four most democratic counties for review. Surely if Gore wanted to make sure that every vote was indeed counted, he wouldn't oppose a statewide review of ballots in Florida and all the states he won narrowly.
Many of those who argue for their continuation claim that recounts are better for the democratic process. Their logic defies reason. Why should Americans trust one count over the next, especially when two of the tallies were conducted by machines, which clearly have no bias, and the third is being done by humans. There always remains the suspicion that those tallying votes are inclined to help one side over the other. This kind of suspicion casts a dubious shadow over the result.
The argument for recounts becomes even less valid when one considers the possible results of the new vote tabulations. If Gore wins the third count, should Bush request a fourth? After all, he'd be up 2-1 on the scorecard. And at what point is there a tiebreaker? Should the process continue until both candidates accept defeat and ask Bill Clinton to serve a third term?
This election may have been very close, but as in hand grenades and horseshoes, close is good enough. Greed, not the nation's interest, is the only thing keeping Gore in this fight.
In the words of Gordon Gekko, the financial shark played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, "greed is good." With this election, Al Gore's desire to win at any cost may be able to prove Gekko correct. If Gore wins, he will have stolen the election from Bush by demanding every remedy under the stars. In dragging the election out, Gore has shown incredible arrogance and a genuine lack of concern for America's future. By not accepting defeat after the first count, he has shown the world that orderly transfers of power are subject to personal ambition. On a bit grander scale, too much ambition led Brutus and Cassius to kill Caesar on the Ides of March, effectively ending the republican form of government in Rome. Ambition, gone overboard, is dangerous.
Gore's team has gone too far because there is no provision in law, either in Florida or anywhere else, where people who don't use their ballot correctly are entitled to recourse. Voting inherently assumes that the voter uses his ballot the intended way, meaning that a person fills out only one answer for each position or question. If not, those tallying the results cannot be expected to predict voter intent.
Nixon in 1960 had a better case for appeal than does Gore today. Nixon, America's most paranoid president, had serious election fraud claims to make in front of the American people, but knew better than to taint the system with prolonged objections and appeals for a second chance. In a Op-ed in The New York Times, historian Richard Reeves shows why Nixon had such a compelling case: In the Nixon election, more than six thousand votes in one Texas county were tallied though less than five thousand voters had registered. In a Chicago precinct, 121 votes were cast in the first hour, yet only 43 people had come to vote. Nixon lost both Illinois and Texas, but did not complain. He simply ran again eight years later and won his rightful position as president of the United States.
Nixon's concession is very much like the argument against instant replay in professional sports. The first call should always stand, because every meaningless delay cheapens the game. Nixon knew that if he contested the election, American prestige, and its model for other countries to follow, would be irreparably harmed. Nixon put honor above personal ambition.
But Gore has not put honor over personal considerations. His objective has been to expand the definition of a vote. His argument is simple: I didn't win the count when they conducted it the usual way. But if the counters read the minds of voters, who miss cast their votes, in only democratic counties, I'll probably win the election. The vice president has forgotten that understanding a ballot is the voter's responsibility. And he never mentions that more than 15,000 ballots were thrown out in 1996, when he became vice president for a second term.
Gore has acted without regard for rules - the same way one might expect Clinton to act, albeit over a woman, not the presidency. Even more ironic, Gore has dispatched Bill Daley, the son of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley who is famous for his innovative election fraud, to scream murder about the Florida counts. American politics can be funny that way.
At this moment, the election should be over; George Bush is the winner. There should be no more counts and recounts. Over one week after the actual vote, efficiency demands that the tallies be done and the process be complete. When the ballots are certified in Florida, Gore should concede defeat and move onto the next part of his life. Elections are simple; only coups are this complicated.
"Greed, in all of its forms, has marked the upward movement of man," asserts Gekko. Al Gore is banking on the fact that Gekko is correct and his protests will yield him the presidency. One wonders how Al Gore will chose between the greed he amplified in his election and the social programs he touts if he prevails. But more importantly, will he ever be able to deal with the harm he caused America's model of stability in the eyes of the world?
