Two thoughts here. First, obviously, there needs to be a recount. When the election is this close, due process demands that you've tried your absolute best to determine the accurate winner. If Rossi ends up on top, he'll look back at this as a fantastic development. Otherwise, his administration will begin with the taint of illegitimacy--whether deserved or not.

The second thought came to me today as I read the Oregonian's editorial in favor of the recount. They described the Rossi team's over-the-top claims of "stealing" the election, as if, again, the politics of politics somehow shock them. But more than the absurd rhetoric, I found myself again thinking, "Here we go again, yet another Republican trying to stifle the democratic process." You have to wonder if they understand how bad it looks.

Steve, don't be a jerk. It's been explained to you quite clearly once. There is an arbitrary standard. This recount is the last.

There has been one recount so far not two. That one was a machine recount. Washington law allows for a second recount, that is a hand recount. Washington law does not allow for further recounts.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the second and final recount shows a Rossi win the Dems will concede. I'm not nearly as confident that the GOP will do the same if the recount leaves Rossi trailing. It will be fun watching you try and spin that if it happens.

Steve,

It isn't disagreement I have a problem with, it's that spin, spin, spin thing.

Why state that there have already been two recounts when there has been only one? Why pretend that there is the potential for endless recounts when it has already been well documented here that there is a process defined in Washington law that does not, in fact, include endless recounts.

Unlike you, I don't think the Dems will go to court if the last recount goes against them, but even if they did that would not lead to endless recounts. The courts would rule, the process would still come to an end.

You may like machine recounts better, but Washington State law doesn't. The solution to that isn't to complain that candidates shouldn't use the remedy that the law provides. The solution to that is to work to change the law to make the process more to your liking.

Do you honestly believe that Rossi would not have asked for this recount if he had ended the first one 42 votes behind?

Byron,

There is no question about "which recount we go with." Some Washington legislature legislated the process for deciding close elections. Washington State law determines which recount decides the election.

You want to spin into existence some moral imperative for Gregoire to ignore the lawful process. Nice try but there haven't been any turnip trucks through here lately.

Yeah, pretty simple actually, Byron.

First, you do the day-of count.

Then, you recount by retotaling the summary sheets.

Then, you run the ballots through the machines again.

Finally, you examine the ballots by hand.

The law is plain, clear, and simple. Now, we can argue the metaphysics of which is most fair, but that's a question for the legislature in the normal course of business -- not for the courts in the midst of a recount.

The law is plain, clear, and simple. Both candidates are entitled to all three recounts.