>>Thank you for stating this so clearly. It seems to me that many people have bought into the GOP line that there is something inherently wrong with manual recounts.
>
>
>FWIW, I don't think the GOP has ever said that recounts were inherently wrong. Rather, their argument is that the "way" the recounts are/were being handled was in violation of the law. I see both sides of the argument. Ultimately, it is going to boil down to who is more persuasive, who makes the better argument.
>
>< JVP >

John,

I think that is exactly what the GOP, especially Baker, was saying up until it was pointed out that Texas also allows for manual recounts. Only then did it become the "no standards" argument.

"The more often ballots are recounted, especially by hand, the more likely it is that human error can be introduced," he (Baker) said [CNN 10 Nov.]

"Voting machines are not Republican and are not Democratic, and are not subject to conscious or unconscious bias," Baker insisted. [CNN 12 Nov.]

Hand counts, Bartlett said, are "a fundamentally flawed process" that "undermines confidence" in the election. [ Dan Bartlett, Bush spokesman, CNN 12 Nov.]

The Republicans have laid out their own list of reasons of why manual recounts are not to be trusted. Machine recounts, they say -- which have been conducted numerous times in several localities -- are more accurate than the subjective processes undertaken by human beings. Bush's legal team is expected to argue before the state supreme court Monday that manual recounts can be "flawed and subject to human error." Baker has used more specific language in public, saying early last week that hand counts add the perils of partisanship and even "mischief" to an already volatile mix [CNN 18 Nov.]

P.S. This is just a quick check. I'll try to confirm this more using more varied sources.