If fraud is supected would you favor a recount, regardless of outcome?

The way I see it, the Florida counties that are of most concern (to us) used optical scan ballots. They can be easily machine recounted, and more labor intensively manually counted. The recount of touch-screen systems should be a no-op, so a state-wide recount would (should) change counts only where optically scanned ballots are used.

Most of Ohio still has punch card ballots, some optical, almost no touch screen.

So, a recount is viable, IMO.

There's nothing to recount where there's no paper trail.

Its time to shitcan all those Diebold machines and bring out the paper.

It will be impossible to reconstruct the votes that were placed on Diebold machines. You cannot have a recount without an audit trail.

Bush can prove that he won.

There is no way with paperless systems, that they will be able to get the same numbers twice.

A recount is the only way to uncover where the systems might have been hacked.

When people have been kept from the polls a revote is in order. I will settle for a statewide hand recount heavily monitored by people from outside the US.

They're made by the same people:

"Two Voting Companies & Two Brothers Will Count 80% of U.S. Election -- Using BOTH Scanners & Touchscreens" by Lynn Landes

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/April2004/Landes0427.htm

The only option is paper ballots, humans reading them. The ultimate in low tech, but it works and is verifiable.

No matter the outcome.

Lots of comments for a re-vote, but if the Democrats couldn't get a recount past the Supreme Court in an election they won, what are the chances a statewide re-vote would pass muster -- they are in a far less powerful position now than in 2000.

I think all the calls for investigation into every state where the process was fishy should go ahead full force, but I don't think the notion that Kerry will be awarded the election is the reason.

It should be done because partisan officials should not be in charge of elections, and making them go to the mat on every issue will make that more and more apparent.

It should be done to refocus every elected official on the scandal of a national voting system that is not auditable.

Kerry winning is not as important as getting a clean election in 2006, IMO.

WITH PAPER BALLOTS AND HAND COUNTING UNDER CLOSE INDEPENDENT SUPERVISION

took enough electoral votes from bush so he lost and it stuck.

i would still be willing to revote. even in 2000. all we want is a fair election. if those bastards can beat us in a fair fight then they beat us.

it should surprise some Republicans to see that we're willing to accept any outcome, so long as the election was held in a valid manner.

Interesting that we're being painted as "sore losers" or "conspiracy theorists," when our only interest is in securing the Democratic process, and making sure that no party has the ability to rig elections in its own favor.

The real line of conversation should be, "Republicans are sore winners - since their guy won, they don't favor a recount. Therefore, they are interfering with the purity of the Democratic process by injecting partisan venom into the discourse."