"Ironically, a tougher standard of counting only cleanly punched ballots advocated by many Republicans would have resulted in a win by just three votes for Gore, the newspaper reported."
posted on April 4, 2001 03:51:11 AM new
Nobody cares about the how or the why anymore. Everyone's too worried about the here-and-now reality that we have a dangerous imbecile in the White House.
posted on April 4, 2001 05:33:36 AM new
[i]On the other hand, the Herald reported that the balance would have tipped to Vice President Al Gore if a recount of the undervotes had been started from scratch in all 67 Florida counties using the most inclusive standards. Under that hypothetical
recount, free from the fragmented chronology of the postelection contest, Mr. Gore would have won the White House, the paper found, but with an even narrower margin of victory than Mr. Bush: only 393 votes[/i].
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/politics/04FLOR.html
posted on April 4, 2001 06:13:53 AM new
Recount did NOT include 110,000+ OVER votes,
which it is beleived Gore would landslide in,
and ALSO, Gore won if you counted only CLEARLY marked votes, and not hanging or pregnant chads.
posted on April 4, 2001 07:12:12 AM new
Morning Powerhouse - It won't matter how these vote recounts come out, each side will continue to believe what they wish.
But on the overvotes, since they have never counted, and did not count in all the other states, seems like a big waste of time, money and effort to be recounting those.
I've read and heard, that many voters checked or punched for Gore, and then wrote his name in. That's still an overvote and it still doesn't count anywhere. But if it would make those who want to see if the overvotes had been counted feel better, then maybe that's it's purpose. Won't change a thing though.
