Posted Aug 17, 2007 8:02 UTC (Fri) by forthy
In reply to: Hanging chads
Parent article: Securing our votes
while a full hand recount was found to be not legally required, a
bunch of journalists did one anyhow and found that no matter how you
counted the ambiguous votes, George Bush won
No, you remember incorrectly. They found that if you only recounted
the four districts Al Gore wanted to have recounted, George Bush still
won. But if you recounted all Florida, George Bush would have lost. Most
of this just went under, since the publication was short after 9/11, and
due to the "many scenario" theme in the article, the conclusion was not
obvious (it also depended on the standard of "voters intent"). See Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, the Times article cited there is only available to
subscribers. But it's certainly wrong that "no matter how you recounted,
George Bush won". You can however say that it was too close to call,
because due to the uncertainty with the recounting, you still didn't get
a convincing result. If you can't get a winner, the rule "the winner
takes it all" shouldn't apply, and if you can't do so, because your
election process has a way too high error margin, even less so.
IMHO, if this recount had been published a month before 9/11, the
conclusion would have been different, and George Bush would have had a
snowball's chance in hell to stay president.
to post comments)