<At the end of the election night the media reported that Seigelman was ahead by 4000 and he declared victory. He stated that he knew that the election was close and he hoped that Riley would concede gracefully and not try to put the people through a recount.

When the clerical error was discovered and the certified total showed Riley ahead by 3000, his attitude changed.



Typical skunk-rank hypocrisy. I think we all know what the "count the vote" screamers would be saying if the situation was reversed and the Democrat was 3000 votes ahead and the Republicans were asking for a recount.

The Republicans are right--they can't force a recount simply based on one person being behind. They have to show some evidence of fraud or other errors. There are two legitimate scenarios for Siegelman to get the ballots unsealed:

- He files an election contest with the Legislature and shows that illegal ballots were counted or legal ballots weren't counted and they would change the results. The new Legislature would consider a contest in January, when it convenes to certify the final voting results.

- He gets a judge to order a recount in a county after finding that a voting machine or precinct did not make a report on election night.

This sounds like it wouldn't be too hard to cobble up, so we may not have heard the last of this.