We've already had the Al Franken Decade (unlike a few of you out there, I actually lived through it) and now we could have the Al Franken 6/10-of-a-Decade if his claim that he's taken the lead in the Minnesota Senate race against GOP incumbent and Woodstock veteran Norm Coleman holds up. The thing is, both sides agree that whoever wins this tally, by literally a handful of votes, still won't be the winner yet, that this thing will be decided by the courts and maybe even by the Congress, which I think would be a horrifying event to have happen.
Yes, an election that's decided by 22 votes or so is a teachable moment for all the voters who stayed home at the last minute. But do we really need to have any election that's within a couple of hundreds votes to be decided in a courtroom, by someone's subjective guess on what a hanging chad or stray pencil mark means?
Oddly enough, we just had a situation in Georgia where voters were called back to the polls for a runoff, no doubt at considerable expense, because no one received 50 percent the first time around. I'm not a big fan of that particular law, but if we have the ability to do that, why not declare a "tie" and have a runoff when the number of contested ballots if greater than the margin of victory. Since the voters learned more about the mettle of the two candidates during the recount process, some might change their votes -- a second "tie" is unlikely.
If another tie happened, I don't know...penalty kicks?
But in the lawsuit-crazed country we've become, isn't a runoff preferable to a judge deciding an election? Because as Donovan McNabb might say, I'd hate to see what would happen if there was a tie in a Super Bowl...or a presidential election.