Saturday 2nd December 2000
Nuffin the Hamster on the possibilities the latest conclusion might bring
Florida (MONDAY) - 'When the court made the 5pm ruling for
Sunday 26th November' said the Democrat 'You had to ask yourself what exactly
they meant to say'
Perhaps it was because I'm a hamster that the
words puzzled me - perhaps it was that I didn't understand the simplicity of the
Florida Supreme Court's ruling - perhaps it wasn't me at all,
though.
'The will of the people is being thwarted' I heard
another Democrat say 'and the voters of Palm Beach County are being
disenfranchised'
I remembered those placards that had been
surfacing on the streets which proclaimed the Gore-Lieberman campaign as
Sore-Loserman and I could see their point - I began to comprehend what it was
that they'd been complaining about.
I summoned up my Acrobat copy of the Florida
ruling and reread the statement about the 5pm deadline.
'What could be plainer?' I thought 'No extension
to the following day unless the Secretary of State's office was
closed'
And that certainly wasn't the case - I saw
Katherine Harris certify the results on tv.
'So, was the griping because they'd lost the
election?' I asked at a Press Conference.
'The problem' a spokesman reassured me 'was the
disenfranchisement of the electorate of Palm Beach County. The right to vote
overrides any deadline which may be imposed by any State court'
But wasn't the deadline given to
secure enough time for the count to be done? Wasn't that concluding statement
'It is so ordered' meant to show that it was to be observed?
'No' said the spokesman 'That's not what it meant
at all. Even the date given was ambiguous...'
'November 26th 2000 is ambiguous?' I
thought.
'...and worthy of more than one
interpretation'
And just what were those alternate
interpretations?
'A legal team is already working hard on that
issue to see where we might be able to prove ambiguity. I'll issue a press
release when they've concluded their discussions'
You mean you didn't know of any? And shouldn't
they have objected then if they thought they hadn't been granted enough
time?
'We're already looking into the legal implications
of this sad state of affairs which undermines the right of every American to
vote' I was assured 'This really is the issue at stake'
The entire situation was beginning to give me
daymares - and it appeared to me that, come the next election in 2004, we might
still be arguing over who actually won...perhaps there won't be another election
if it isn't possible to determine who has to stand down, anyway?
It's not often that I get confused - but all these
final deadlines which weren't were beginning to baffle me...
Nuffin the Hamster writes
for the Rodent Weekly.
This article appears courtesy of that paper.
