Kucinich, who somewhat surprisingly already announced his latest presidential race is over, paid nearly thirty thousand dollars for a partial recount of the New Hampshire primary results. This is a sizable sum, but there was some value in the effort, even if its incompleteness led to a somewhat unsatisfactory result. The incompleteness of the effort tempers the complete assurance of the below remarks, but it bears mentioning the many comparable efforts take a sample size only. Thus, a "complete" review is often not way at any rate, so however rough, the results here appear fairly reliable.
Fears of a wrongful result was not reflected in the limited recount, if one that included the most populous county, but there were some notable changes in result. It isn't too surprising, since no system is perfect, though it underlines the importance of some sort of audit procedure to ensure confidence in the vote count. Many might simply not care, and to be blunt this is the case, that a sizable part of the electorate do not trust the core of our republican democracy -- the legitimacy of elections -- but this does not mean we should be happy about the whole thing. Or, just let it happen without trying to deal with the issue.
[The concern here is based on some real facts and legitimate worries, but even if it was just misguided, it would not really change the need for assurance. Humans sometimes need reassurance when dry facts might warrant otherwise. Sneers will not change the alternative: chunks of the population simply cynical and untrusting of the legitimacy of their elections. The basic disdain for fellow citizens sometimes shown here is distasteful; not that I'm a bit surprised about it by now. It remains distasteful all the same.]
And, in the age of close elections, even minor discrepancies (especially as voting technology changes*) very well may matter a whole lot. We have instant replay to check a call in football; is this not more important? Well, you know, other than in the Super Bowl when it might lead to the right result (hint: Go Blue!). Seriously, one more thing: some speak of Kucinich, Paul and even Edwards having "vanity" runs for President. I particularly find this a dubious label given the support and influence on the conversation that Paul and Edwards bring; even Dodd, a minor candidate to be sure, brought something to the table with his message on the dangers of executive power.
But, Kucinich too (though I think the way he does it leaves something to be desired) has value. This relatively little reported story underlines the point, though the Edwards run (even if K. supported Obama in Iowa) somewhat provided the "Kucinich" message, K. providing a more pure and consistent version all the same. Both were often not taken too seriously as well. Still, as with Paul and Huckabee, such "vanity" candidates do have a real effect on the campaign. We should thank such people for their efforts, rather thankless actually.
I personally rather campaigns be more than one or two major candidates basically guaranteed the nomination honing their craft and dealing with such "third party" representatives of chunks of the electorate, but such interest group representatives do play such a role all the same. Thus, the sneer is uncalled for. Cf. Nader, who was more for himself, even when the result went against his claimed major concerns.
---
* In New York City, we still use lever machines, while "voter fraud" is guarded against by use of signatures. How exactly a totally reliable recount of a lever machine is provided is unclear. The process of finding a new method has received little press, though a lawsuit led to an optical scan method being chosen for the disabled.
The process of finding a voting machine option overall has been a bit convoluted, though honestly, I do not know the particulars. Simply put, new machines will not be in place for this election, and media coverage has been thin. This reflects the underwhelming emphasis this has received nationally as well, even if voting issues (see, e.g., the federal attorney firings) is a major issue of the day.
I'd add that my polling place is minutes away and a requirement to go to a governmental office to confirm my identity ala the id law currently under Supreme Court review would require over an hour for the trip alone. People could cut the time by doing it on their way to work, though some simply would not have the time, or in the process, miss some work along the way. Since even a $1 poll tax is unconstitutional, this alone underlines the problem. Some clearly would simply not vote.