Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Ok. According to NORC, by a count of 4 to 3, Gore would have won by the "most" recount methods. All recount methods are not created equal. The 4 in question required a very generous counting method.
Your last statement demonstrates why it's folly to pick your method after the fact, and further underlies why the statement "SCOTUS picked the President" is totally false.
You beat me by one minute. I just said the same thing.
|
No, it isn't totally false.
You note a recount of the entire state's votes would have been "very generous." Why? If every single vote was recounted in Florida, Gore would have won the election. In other words, the truest reflection of every single vote in Florida would have been a Gore victory. The legal arguments presented by both Gore and Bush focused on limited recounts (which, presumably, would have resulted in a more accurate count of the votes in those areas). To say that it makes sense to have an accurate count in some areas but not in others is an odd position to take, I think.
The case was the odd result of intense political pressure at the state and federal level, media scrutiny, and time sensitivity. I am not one who claims Gore "won" the election. He didn't. There was a process established, and under that process, he lost. He could have won under a different process, and whether other processes should have been the process used is valid for debate. But it isn't a debate that results in a claim that Bush wasn't elected president. It may be a debate that results in an understanding of how things can better be handled in the future.