The O.J. Simpson murder trial reminded us that criminal justice is a messier process than we like to assume. Before that, most of us took it for granted that when a criminal leaves physical evidence at the crime scene, the police will find it, the prosecution will present it, and the jury will convict. But we found that clever lawyers can work malign wonders, especially when the prosecutors are inept. There turned out to be plenty of room for manipulation of seemingly clear-cut facts. There was enough confusion even before the lawyers got into the act with their dizzying prestidigitation.
Raw numbers create the illusion of exactitude where the reality is ambiguous.
An absolutely complete, honest, and accurate count, if it were possible, could have gone either way. All these considerations should cause us to reopen some old questions. A popular vote may provide a useful mode of succession. It may be preferable to hereditary rule or to a raw, violent struggle for power. But it can't authorize a government to expand its powers beyond the bounds of natural justice.