>There were local regulations in at least one county (PBC) dating back to (I think) 1988 that were disregarded for the manual count. How convenient. And the GOP *has* challenged that aspect in one or more of their omnibus filings.

As I asked earlier, please cite it. I am not saying this to be a smart-ass. I genuinely want to know. If the PBC Canvassing Board is breaking their own rules, I would like to know.

>Correct! But by Federal law, they must stick to the laws that were in place before the election, for one. For two, when they try to exercise their discretion, such as Miami-Dade discontinuing a recount, someone sues them because they don't happen to like the law.

Like I wrote earlier, where are these laws? Where is the law in Palm Beach County that says how the canvassing board will conduct the manual recount? As I wrote earlier, I am not saying it does not exist, but I have to see it.

>>I am not a lawyer, so I do not know. But I have a lot of faith in the US Supreme court, and if they say what the canvassing board did was illegal, I have no problem with that. How about all the conservatives participating in this thread? If the US Supreme Court rules in favor of Gore, are you going to say they have over-stepped their bounds?
>
>Chris, do you actually look into these matters before posting? The Supremes are NOT going to rule on the legality of manual recounts per se, AFAIK, but about the timing and discretion of those counts as well as whether or not the Florida Supreme court violated separation of powers.

Yes I do, but I admit to being mixed up on this one. I apologozie. I agree that the US Supreme Court will not be ruling on the PBC canvassing board.

The point I was trying to make is that if the US Supreme court rules that the Florida Supreme Court did not overstep their bounds, will conservatives accept that, or claim the USSC is biased as conservatives have alleged?

>>Are you talking about the 1996 Presidential election? I am going to take a wild guess here and say the machine count wasn't challenged because even if Dole won (and I do not know who actually took Florida), it didn't matter.
>
>I amn talking about every single election held with the Votomatic equipment since 1965.

And my point still stands... the results are being challenged because it was a close election. Pure and simple. As you write down below, why is this so hard to understand?

>>No, the election doesn't have to be perfect. It's just to elect the leader of the free world. But I would not want my vote tossed out by a faulty machine.
>
>Fine. The laws on balloting should be reviewed and adjusted in the next few years as I am sure that they will. But you can't retroactively change laws to cover an election that was already held. This is strict violation of Federal law. Why is this so hard to understand?

Cite the law governing the rules for the manual recounts, and I will have no problem agreeing with you.