> >I want to make that correction before someone else does; IŽd said that >Kerry >nearly lost the presidential election because he nearly lost in Florida. >Actually, of course, it was Gore who barely won the presidency in 2000.
It depends how you count it, right? As I understand, Gore won if you count overvotes, but otherwise Bush was still slightly ahead. Overvotes are when a voter fills in the oval for Gore, but then also writes his name where it says "write in". Personally, I think that overvotes should count, so I think that Gore was the legitimate winner of Florida in 2000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html Of course, that doesn't take into account the butterfly ballots or the GOP-friendly voter roll purges; had these things not occurred, I expect Gore would have won by at least a couple thousand votes. Anyway, I think that was a rather dark chapter in American history. It's a scary time when political candidates openly and aggressively campaign against recounting the votes when the original count is suspect; it shows a blatant disrespect for the will of the people. Although perhaps openly campaigning against verifiability for voting machines is scarier still. James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info