Almost nobody is looking at what is critical in these recounts. It is NOT important why voter errors occur (butterfly ballots,etc.); and it's NOT even a question of chads and the criteria used to conjure up the voter's intention during a recount (as long as the same decision criteria are used for all ballots). Those are diversions to fool people who don't understand numbers.
The ONLY issue is the selection of counties to be hand recounted. The effect of recounting only counties that went heavily for Gore is to take random errors and turn them into extra votes for Gore.
Example: In a county that went 65% for Gore, obviously 65% of the random errors will have come from Gore voters. So,if you can find a way to turn bad ballots into votes, 65% will (surprise!) turn out to be Gore votes. A hundred resurrected bad ballots would on average yield 65 Gore votes and 35 Bush votes, for a 30-vote pickup for Gore. But, of course, the opposite would be true in a county that went 65% for Bush.
Random errors do not change who wins, and they do not change the percentage each candidate gets. The only reason to worry about random error is that in a very close election where the absolute vote count becomes important, one side or the other may try to pull a fast one by doing selective hand recounts of their high-majority counties. That's exactly what the Gore bunch is up to.
All the business about butterfly ballots and dimpled chads was merely the wedge to get recounts in certain Gore counties. They also were careful to sample hugely-Gore precincts to demonstrate that more Gore votes went uncounted (well, of course!), thus there was a "problem" requiring a recount in the whole county! Once the recounts are confined to Gore counties, it's an automatic win.
The GOP, since it for some reason (not good with numbers?) did not demand recounts in Bush counties, is very lucky more Gore counties weren't recounted. If more had been counted, Gore would have won; the math is inexorable.
The Supreme Court has to understand what is going on here, and not be side-tracked by butterflys and chads. The only fair hand recount is of the entire state, nothing else.
The ONLY issue is the selection of counties to be hand recounted. The effect of recounting only counties that went heavily for Gore is to take random errors and turn them into extra votes for Gore.
Example: In a county that went 65% for Gore, obviously 65% of the random errors will have come from Gore voters. So,if you can find a way to turn bad ballots into votes, 65% will (surprise!) turn out to be Gore votes. A hundred resurrected bad ballots would on average yield 65 Gore votes and 35 Bush votes, for a 30-vote pickup for Gore. But, of course, the opposite would be true in a county that went 65% for Bush.
Random errors do not change who wins, and they do not change the percentage each candidate gets. The only reason to worry about random error is that in a very close election where the absolute vote count becomes important, one side or the other may try to pull a fast one by doing selective hand recounts of their high-majority counties. That's exactly what the Gore bunch is up to.
All the business about butterfly ballots and dimpled chads was merely the wedge to get recounts in certain Gore counties. They also were careful to sample hugely-Gore precincts to demonstrate that more Gore votes went uncounted (well, of course!), thus there was a "problem" requiring a recount in the whole county! Once the recounts are confined to Gore counties, it's an automatic win.
The GOP, since it for some reason (not good with numbers?) did not demand recounts in Bush counties, is very lucky more Gore counties weren't recounted. If more had been counted, Gore would have won; the math is inexorable.
The Supreme Court has to understand what is going on here, and not be side-tracked by butterflys and chads. The only fair hand recount is of the entire state, nothing else.
.