Except of course, that had there been a real re-count, Gore would have won. As I recall (admittedly, my memory is a little sketchy) Gore won Florida (if they had done a recount of the complete state, it would have shown that)(as per the NYT) Gore's mistake in the lawsuits that followed, was to ask for recounts only in the Dem leaning districts.

Here's what Wikipedia says:

The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.

The Florida Supreme Court had ordered "counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation." The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and stopped their recount via an unsigned "per curiam" opinion in Bush v. Gore, with three Justices (Rehnquist joined by Scalia and Thomas) concurring in a separate opinion. Four Justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) each wrote their own opinion with various combinations of the other three joining.[3]

The media recount study found that under the system of limited recounts in selected counties as was requested by the Gore campaign, the only way that Gore would have won was by using counting methods that were never requested by any party, including "overvotes" — ballots containing more than one vote for an office. While some of these ballots recorded votes for two separate candidates, a significant number (20 percent in Lake County, for example) were cases of a voter voting for a candidate and then also writing in that same candidate's name on the write-in line. A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount. According to Mickey Kaus of Slate.com (emphasis in original), "If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won."[4]

The New York Times did its own analysis of how mistaken overvotes might have been caused by confusing ballot designs. It found that the butterfly ballot in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County may have cost Gore a net 6286 votes, and the two page ballot in similarly Democratic Duval County may have cost him a net 1999 votes, each of which would have made the difference by itself.[5] The rest of the media consortium did not consider these because there could be no clear determination of a voter's intent.

So, the only way Gore would have won would have been to illegally count ballots.

Except, of course, that Bush won the intial count, the second count, and the final count.

Except of course, that had there been a real re-count, Gore would have won. As I recall (admittedly, my memory is a little sketchy) Gore won Florida (if they had done a recount of the complete state, it would have shown that)(as per the NYT) Gore's mistake in the lawsuits that followed, was to ask for recounts only in the Dem leaning districts.

Apparently, they've figured out what they did wrong, that time, and improved on the process.

Yeah, Bit, they figured out that they need to count ALL the votes, What a concept, eh?

Yes, people in general and conservatives in particular have always been totally honest and above-board and never been nasty or contested elections.

I await with interest your listing of where they've not been so, but I won't held my breath.

You can breathe again Bit, you are example #1.

Funny how Republicans win on election day, but Democrats seem to win a recount. Wonder why that is? Cheating anyone?

Zelsdorf: Yes, I do wonder how it is, that when they actually count the ballots, Republicans always lose... Any body else detect a pattern here?

To quote Gomer Pyle.... SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!??
Democrat mantra ...Keep countin' 'til you win!

Floyd, are you even listening to yourself? Once you you get what ya want, STOP!!!

Hard to feel good about this no matter how it turns out,

Indeed Bit, because as ggir said:

What's undemocratic or dangerous about contesting an election? It strikes me that the opposite would be the dangerous condition - not allowing announced election results to be examined.

Let us get real: No matter what happens, somebody is going to b*tch. What do we do? As one who did not like the results in Georgia, I can not argue with them. Chambliss won.

Wow!! From the reports I've seen, that's like calling sausage making "the fine art of carvery."

Democrat mantra ...Keep countin' 'til you win!

Illinois should have elected "BOZO The Clown" when they had the chance!
OH Well, we had Garfield Goose "The King of the United States"!![lol]

One reason might be that polling and information flow has improved, which allows politicians to triangulate better. This results in closer elections, overall, which results in more recounts, especially very close ones. All of which, obviously, work towards revealing how badly the system is broken.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one. What is the added info flow going to do? It's going to move public opinion, not the vote count.

One reason might be that polling and information flow has improved, which allows politicians to triangulate better. This results in closer elections, overall, which results in more recounts, especially very close ones. All of which, obviously, work towards revealing how badly the system is broken.

Bitsy, Chuck, perhaps the larger argument James makes is that if the process is indeed broken, it can't be broken just for Franken/Coleman, but also for Bush/Gore.

Of course! And Gore nearly got away with it, too.
Apparently, they've figured out what they did wrong, that time, and improved on the process.

Yes, people in general and conservatives in particular have always been totally honest and above-board and never been nasty or contested elections.

I await with interest your listing of where they've not been so, but I won't held my breath.

The process is indeed mess, but I'm more stunned that the great State of Minnesota has now seen fit to elect a wrestler and a B grade comedian to serious public office. Now THAT's a broken process.

It must be the cold air.

This is unlike Florida in 2000 when the Republican machine did everything in its power to prevent ballots from being counted. The voters were not respected by the Gore people either as he never championed the position that every single vote in the state needed to be counted. It was a fiasco and the winner was eventually decided by five conservative republicans on the US Supreme Court. This made the Bush presidency illegitimate.

The key is in respecting the voters and doing whatever is humanly possible to discern the will of of the voter on each ballot cast. Sometimes it is easy to do, sometimes it is not so easy. But that is what makes a government or an elected official legitimate in the eyes of the people.