1) When there is a very close result in any election, the normal practice is to have a full recount.

2)This has to be a manual recount, because there are inherent flaws in machines which mean that there are inevitably going to be some errors which can be eliminated by individual scrutiny of ballot bapers.

3)A manual recount has to be carried out in a way that ensures that there is no bias in favour of any particular candidate. There are tried and tested methods of ensuring this.

4)There is no reason why it should take any longer to carry out a full recount in all parts of the state than it does to carry out a recount in a single precinct or a single county.

5)Anybody who tries to prevent such a recount, by any means, in order to favour a particular candidate is attempting to disrupt the process of a democratic election.

6)Carrying out a democratic election is a far more important matter than who actually wins it.

It seems remarkably simple to me. Can anybody honestly say they disagree with any of these points? And, if so, that they are not influenced by whom they would like to see win this particular election.