The Democrats claim that the 'will of the majority' is paramount-and so they say that the 'intent' of every single voter must somehow be determined, said Robert W. Tracinski, a columnist for Creators Syndicate. Perversely, however, this means empowering local officials to decide what the voters 'really meant, with no objective standards to guide them.'

Tracinski said that in a similar way the Democrats have erected a massive and unaccountable federal bureaucracy, in which regulators govern by arbitrary decree, claiming all along that they are just interpreting the will of the people.

The Founding Fathers regarded pure, unlimited democracy as a dangerous form of mob rule, said Tracinski. They believed that the rights of the individual were more important than the unbridled will of the majority. And that's why they created a different system, a republic-a government in which the will of the majority it subordinated to the rule of law.

Tracinski added that the Republicans' best legal arguments have hinged on the rule of law.

The Republicans argue that the election results ought to be counted according to uniform and objective standards-not the caprice of local officials, said Tracinski. And they argue that the election contest ought to follow procedures laid down beforehand by law-as opposed to rules made up after the fact to determine the 'will' of the people.

The ever-shifting uncertainty and anarchic court rulings of this election crisis are an ominous reminder of what happens when we substitute unlimited 'democracy' for the 'government of laws and not of men' that our Founders envisioned.