A few election premises destroyed

Did you hear the news? The Socialist 'conservative' Socialist 'conservative' won in a close election in Mexico. Many recounts were required and the side on the Left says they will pursue their victory through the courts. Hmm, odd. I thought the divisiveness was unique to America and was the fault of George W Bush's presidency...which would not explain the 2000 election but never expect details to dissuade a partisan of any belief.

Did you hear the news last year? In the multi-party elections in Aruba there was a recount because a difference of 20 votes, if able to be erased, would have given a smaller party (Real Democracy party) a seat in the parliament which would have swayed the "majority" from one side (People's Electoral Movement) to the other (coalition of Aruban People's Party, Aruban Patriotic Movement, Network (RED) and Real Democracy). It would be like the Constitution Party winning a seat allowing them to caucus with the Republicans giving the Right a majority.

I could not find it, maybe there was, but I cannot find any. I found no talk of lawsuits in that election. Notice: they are on the Right side of the philosophical spectrum.

Did you hear a few months ago the news? The Presidential election was so close in Costa Rica that a recount was required.

With one of the closest finishes in the country's history, officials said the result would hang on a manual recount.

With more than 86% of votes counted, ex-President Oscar Arias had 40.5%, compared with 40.2% for Otton Solis - a difference of fewer than 5,000 votes.

Both men said they would wait for the final results before claiming victory.

Arias won re-election, but notice again that there was no threat of going to the courts to secure the victory. Notice also that the Socialist (Left-wing) candidate won after the recount.

Did you know that the 2004 Elections in Taiwan were so close that there was a mandatory recount? Chen Shui-bian won his re-election over Lien Chan after the recount was completed. Now here the conservative party (Kuomintang/People First Party (Pan-Blue Coalition)) was threatening court action...because there was not any method for a recount in such a close election. Once the left-leaning incumbent and his party (Democratic Progressive Party (Pan-Green Coalition)) agreed to a recount and installed into law a mandatory recount if the margin is less than 1% the threats of court action ceased.

A few months ago in Italy there was a close election in which the conservative was demanding a recount. Yep, the the parliamentary elections had given the Left a slim (25,224 votes out of over 38 million voters) victory and the sitting Premier Silvio Berlusconi began demanding a recount and charged election fraud. Yes, he made possibly false charges...but I cannot find any claim to take the issue through the Judiciary (beyond the fact that Italy conducts its recounts through its lower courts).

Now we already know that the US 2000 election ended in court because of the allowance of differing standards in recounting within Florida. (Remember, in some counties the Democrats wanted overvotes to count and in other counties they didn't; they wanted undervotes to count in some counties and not in others; in some counties 'hanging chads' counted and in others not.)

Remember that in 2004 the Democrats were threatening court action in many states if the counts were close. Not threatening recounts, but court action. Remember the DNC handbooks that instructed the foot soldiers to fabricate charges of fraud if necessary because the penultimate goal was getting the elections into court.

Ever since 2000 the Left has made a few claims that the other examples seem to prove wrong.

First, the "divisiveness" is unnatural and unique to the United States. Obviously it is not. It is not even unique to any one global topic.

Second, Bush is the reason for the division in this country. If this were true then there are two questions that must be answered. Are the leaders of these other countries to blame for their nations being divided? Is being divided 50/50 (instead of 75/25 or something) a bad thing? I would posit "No" to both.

Something else that must be noted is that in each of the elections where the Left lost there have been threats of court action from the Left. The 2 times the Right-wing have threatened or taken court action there were very legitimate equality concerns. There were not any equality concerns in the threats from the Left...only accusations that they wanted substantiated somehow through the Courts.

What does this tell you? Or, what should it tell you? Two things.

One: The Left universially beleives in bigger and unified government. They embrace warmly the United Nations and an international court through the UN. They want the executive selection (elections) to be able to be united in process with the Courts. Consolidated Power to the Left is good. It is the very root of Socialism and Communisim. However, it is the antithesis of freedom.

Two: The legislature and executive need be tools of the judiciary and they believe that the Courts will uphold any claim. Notice that the Left in this country does not try to legislate bans on "under God", instead they go to Court. In this country this comes from the very broken concept of a "Living Constitution" which means that the Courts get to determine what changes in the laws and Constitution are made. I say broken because the Constitution laid out a method for changing laws...the Legislature. I say broken because the Constitution laid out a method for updating the Constitution...Constitutional Amendments.

The Mexican elections have been very fascinating not just for its own sake but in what it reinforces as a trend about the Left globally.