corrente

I've never understood why the Republicans are against counting all the votes in Ohio; after all, the Fourteenth Amendment—remember the Constitution? Democrats, at least? I'm sure you do—says that when you don't, there are consequences:

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
(via FindLaw)

So, the only real question is, was the right of citizens (um, sorry about that "male" wording) to vote "in any way abridged" in Ohio? Of course. We all know about the long lines in Democratic precincts, and we remember reading about the mysterious lockdown of Cuyahoga election headquarters—and that's just for starters.

Will the craven and disgraceful scene on the Senate floor after Florida 2000 be repeated in 2004? Or will a Senator step up and give John Conyers, and the disenfranchisd, a vote?