3 ms·
> Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted. Leaving aside other countries and their transition times, in the U.S. at least, th
by sverige 9y ago
> Voting needs to be reasonably fast so that the decisions are then enacted.
Leaving aside other countries and their transition times, in the U.S. at least, there is always more than enough time to have a recount before the winner takes office. There is also enough time to do the same for things like ballot initiatives and referenda, which don't go into effect immediately, but some reasonable amount of time after the vote.
With reference to the 2000 election, the legal fight over the process to perform manual recounts in Florida took far longer than the actual recounts would have taken, dragging it out to December 12. Interestingly enough, while I have heard some still claim that "Bush stole the election," when the press actually finished a manual recount, the conclusion was that Bush had, in fact, won the vote. But people will believe what they want to believe about the fairness of elections when it doesn't go their way, as has been amply demonstrated recently.
- mkstowegnv 9y agoAs several studies that looked all the ballots cast in FL have concluded, Gore had slightly more votes than Bush. However ironically if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, the selective recount that Gore's lawyers were arguing for would have favored Bush. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...