Talk:Bush v. Gore

The issue of who would have won

Hi all. I have concerns about the content dispute that has occurred recently, specifically starting with this edit. I've read the source in question and, according to the citation, either candidate could have won depending on the standard used to count dimpled ballots. I do not think this issue is as simple as saying "X candidate would have won". I suggest further debate on this issue be hashed out on the talk page instead of through edit summaries and reverting. A good place to start would be to locate additional sources that speak to this issue. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out the current version. I've clarified the Introduction so that it reads that Gore "might" have won a statewide recount (quoting the source). Hopefully, there will be no dispute over this issue. SMP0328. (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why we are discussing at all what would have happened had there been a state-wide recount, especially not in the lead paragraph. A state-wide recount wasn't at issue in Bush v. Gore. It is tangential at best. I think there is a strong consensus that Gore would have absolutely won had there been a statewide recount, but I don't see at all why it is relevant, especially b/c the specific recount Gore requested in Bush v Gore would not have helped him. That is an extremely important part of the Bush v Gore story, especially because so many people have a misconception that Bush v Gore somehow helped Bush or otherwise altered the outcome of the election.PStrait (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, "I think there is a strong consensus that Gore would have absolutely won had there been a statewide recount" is not true according to the source. As I noted in my first comment, the source claims that the outcome of a statewide recount would have hinged on the standard used to count dimpled ballots. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what I mean is a state-wide recount that counted both undervotes and overvotes. I could provide a dozen references for this except I don't think it is in contest because, as I've said, overwhelming consensus exists. But again, my point is that I don't understand why this is relevant to this article, or at least so relevant as to belong in the lead paragraph. A state-wide recount was not at issue in Bush v Gore. Gore was suing for a very limited recount, the results of which, had it occurred, would not have altered the outcome of the election. That's the key part of the story that needs to be clear.PStrait (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a few of the aforementioned references? I'm genuinely curious and you seem to be quite familiar with this topic. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here (http://www.rense.com/general16/count.htm) is an extremely conservative source that examined 6 major new analyses of the final ballot analysis, and determined that "Under any standard that counted all disputed votes in Florida, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes," and further, to my point, "Gore followed a legal strategy that would have led to his defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court." Again, I really don't see the relevance of discussing the potential outcome of a full statewide recount -- mentioning it at all implies relevance that it lacks. I think a serious misconception about bush v gore exists that this feeds rather than ameliorates.PStrait (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And your source for these claims is...Matt Drudge?! — goethean ॐ 22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I offered that source b/c it was a conservative making a claim against his interest so I thought it would be accepted by the particular audience of people not aware of all the studies done by major news organizations -- all of which are the basis for this conclusion. Is this a serious request? The study that Drudge is citing was done by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which was a meta-analysis of the studies done by The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, Cox Newspapers, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co. (which owns Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, etc.). As reported in the Washington Post (11/12/01), "The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited -- the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes." I don't really know why this discussion needs to continue since it is not relevant to the article, a point I have been repeatedly making that seems to be falling on deaf ears.PStrait (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So do you believe the hypothetical statewide recount reference should be removed from the Introduction? I favor removal, but simply changed it so I could avoid being in an edit war and so the reference matched the source provided. SMP0328. (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Per PStrait's points, I favor the removal of the hypothetical state wide recount while leaving in the fact that Gore's proposed recount method would have made no difference. The state-wide recount is perhaps of interest to a more general article about this event. The result of Gore's proposed method should stay in as it speaks to what would have happened if this court case had gone differently. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a serious and genuine request. According to the source currently in the article: "the study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush". The article then goes on to say that under 7 different standards of counting undervotes, Gore would have won, but that under the standard where " counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219." In my plain reading on this source, it seems clear to me that the election could have gone either way depending on the standard applied to dimpled ballots. Is this the study you are referring to, or was there another study? I'd love to take a look at the sources you mention, especially ones that meet WP:RS guidelines. As far as your point about relevancy to the article, it is well taken. However, you've put forward the claim that an "overwhelming consensus exists" that Gore would have won a state wide recount. As such, I'd really like to see sources that back up this claim. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I would perhaps rephrase my statement to say that overwhelming consensus exists that Gore *probably* would have won had there been a full statewide recount of overvotes and undervotes. That is the specific phrasing in most sources I've seen, e.g., http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/. My objection to "might have won" was that it implies a higher degree of uncertainty than actually exists. There is unavoidable uncertainty -- the NORC study didn't have access to 2200 ballots. The 3-person dimpled chad issue you refer to doesn't assume a full count of overvotes, and it also raises some other issues (why 3 person agreement?). But in any event, I think the consensus is that it is very likely (though not guaranteed) that a complete recount would have favored Gore.PStrait (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus, so I have removed the statewide recount reference from the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your points. Very interesting conversation, this one! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 15:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)