The recount of Ohio's 88 counties showed that Senator John Kerry gained 734 votes, with Mr. Bush picking up 449 after elections officials allowed more than 1,100 previously disqualified ballots to be counted in the second tally. ...
Daniel Trevas, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party, said Democrats supported the recount but found that county elections officials sometimes ignored requests by recount observers to see rejected absentee and provisional ballots, and were not informed about procedures used to recount and reject ballots.
So was it a waste of time? Many think so, and some in Ohio are trying to make it harder to force a recount, though paying a hundred and thirteen thousand dollars is not exactly "easy." The problem is that the actual cost is probably much higher with $1.5 million being a number suggested.
Also, in the words of the Ohio Attorney General, who submitted a brief to protect the secretary of state from being questioned by those challenging the vote, the people involved "are not trying to actually contest the presidential election but are merely using this litigation to cast public doubt on the voting system of the State of Ohio without a shred of evidence supporting their theories."
This is in response to a lawsuit, citing fraud, that challenged the results of the presidential race in Ohio. They point to long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods and problems with computer equipment. This sort of thing has been subject to various newspaper articles, a special investigation by members of Congress, and an ongoing GAO investigation. Suffice to say, there is a "shred of evidence" suggesting that something is wrong here, and we can toss in strict rules for provisional ballots, including not accepting them if mistakenly submitted in the wrong voting place.
I do not know if "fraud" can be proven, though even here there is a "shred of evidence." Likewise, it is useful to note that nearly one hundred thousand (if less than in 2000) votes were not counted, generally because of those darn push card ballots, and therefore not subject to the recount. (Not enough to change the vote, but obviously enough to change the number of votes for each candidate by much more than 1100.)
Also, as shown in part by the initial quote, the attempt to recount and investigate has been blocked in various ways. The most recent is the move by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to request a protective order to prevent him from being interviewed as part of an unusual court challenge of the presidential vote. And, no recount can count computer votes when no paper trail exists.
So, the fact that but a trivial change in the final count resulted after the recount does not mean all is well. Problems still exist, but perhaps more importantly, distrust still does. For when we determine "necessity" we must take this into consideration:
But what is unnecessary? Peg Rosenfield, election specialist for the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said that just because a recount won't change election results doesn't mean it's pointless.
Elections are not just about numbers, but also perceptions, she said, noting that the public viewed Ohio's election with a high degree of paranoia. One way to resolve that is with a recount, she said.
When dealing with the state on which the presidential election turned, with an electoral system controlled by a Republican who made some partisan noises that bred distrust, and is in the midst of putting forth new (untested) electoral procedures, this matters quite a lot. And, again, the problems that clearly did exist will not show up in recount results, as is often the case with such matters. Finally, let's not forget that to bring forth a recount, the parties had to submit not a trivial sum. It might be compared to litigants who must pay for certain court fees to be allowed to use the state's judicial machinery to carry out a lawsuit.
Perhaps, the fee might be raised, but ultimately, $1.5 million was not too much to pay. In fact, given some of Ohio's questionable moves leading to various election day problems, it was the very least it could do to help gain trust in our electoral process.
[Very Late Update: Two election officials were convicted soon after this writing of rigging the recount though the prosecution was not based on this ultimately changing the outcome in any significant way. Still, this sort of thing doesn't advance assurance, does it?]