"count only those votes for either candidate that clearly shows the voter's intent, not what some "reader" interprets as the voter's intent"

That's what I've been suggesting all along. But I think that a decent dent in a bit iof peper is as good an indication of an intent as a hole clean through. Anyway, so long as the same rule is applied regardless of the candidate, it shouldn't make any difference. And the rule applied should be the one that was least likely to disqualify valid votes.

My criticism of the Bush lot is that they were not saying those kind of things, and trying to ensure that the recount was as fair as possible. They were trying successfully to obstruct the manual recount - they even argued that a manual recount, which just does not stand up. That was cynical and shameful, and would have been cynical and shameful whichever candidate tried it on. Or perhaps "shameless" is the more fitting word.

And that seems logical to me.