Talk:Bush v. Gore

Broken Reference

Something isn't quite right with reference [15], in that the first link seems to properly point to the decision, but the archived link seems to point to something relating to the DNCC, and having nothing to do with the reference. I propose that the broken link simply be removed, since the first link at least for now works just fine.Pigdog234 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The original link no longer lead to the source, hence it is a dead link. Part of adding the archive link is leaving the dead link in place. SMP0328. (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The original link works just fine. The issue is the archival link is incorrect, and points to something that is not relevant to the reference. A better link might be https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1489353.html, but I'm not expert at this.Pigdog234 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the dead link with the one you provided. Thanks for your help improving the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A Very Biased, Misleading Article

This is a very biased, misleading article on Bush v. Gore and on Al Gore's efforts to get cherry-picked recounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikegriffith1 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How is the article biased and misleading? X-Editor (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The main problem I see is the other way - the idea that this was in any serious way 7-2. Discussed in the archives by myself and others. There is misleading "scholarship" on this since shortly after the decision was made, based on one extremely misleading sentence in the per curiam. There is good scholarship too out there, but it is exactly the sort of thing that people aiming at genuine scholarship aim away from imho.

But Wikipedia is not part of the US legal system. If the US Supreme Court majority wrote in a per curiam that 2 + 2 = 5, that would not bind us to saying so, though it might arguably bind the US legal apparatus in some way. We would say something like "SCOTUS declares 2 + 2 = 5". We would not say in wikipedia's voice, as if it were undisputed or indisputable, simply "2 + 2 = 5". This undue respect for the Supreme Court is a crucial wikilawyering point that people who are lawyers in real life instead might not grasp at first. :-) (See archives) But it does still mislead people. Seeing people thus misled on another internet forum is what made we return to comment here just now.John Z (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The per curiam ruling

This part of this article:

"The per curiam opinion also identified an inconsistency with the fact that the Florida statewide recount of rejected ballots was limited to undervotes. The opinion implied that a constitutionally valid recount would include not only Florida's undervotes, but also its overvotes. The per curiam expressed concern that the limited scope of Florida’s recount would mean that, unlike some undervotes found to be reclaimable, valid votes among the overvotes would not be reclaimed.[a] Furthermore, if a machine incorrectly reads an overvote as a valid vote for one of two marked candidates instead of rejecting it, Florida would wrongly count what should be an invalid vote.[b]"

–is a bit misleading since only counting the undervotes and overvotes won't result in identifying any ballots that were mistakenly counted by the voting machines (which SCOTUS has identified as a problem in the last sentence above. To identify any overvotes that are mistakenly counted by the voting machines, the ballots that are classified as legal votes also need to be manually recounted (on top of recounting the undervotes and overvotes). Law professor Nelson Lund said as much when he analyzed the Bush v. Gore ruling:

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1061VeryStreamlinedIntroduction.pdf

"The initial recounts conducted in the Gore-selected counties covered all ballots, but the statewide recount ordered by the Florida court was limited to undervote ballots. Undervote ballots are analytically indistinguishable from overvote ballots. In both cases, the machine registers no vote, and in both cases a human observer might decide that the machine had erred. [b]What’s more, some ballots that a human observer would interpret as an overvote (and thus treat as no vote) could have registered as a valid vote in the machine count.[/b] The Florida court’s restriction of the statewide recount to undervote ballots thus arbitrarily treated voters in the counties initially selected by Gore differently than voters in other counties."

Also this part of Lund's article:

"It should hardly be surprising that Gore asked for a recount that was biased in his favor. The Florida court sought to reduce this completely obvious bias by ordering a statewide manual recount. But why limit the statewide recount to undervote ballots? The only apparent reason was that these ballots resembled the 9,000 undervote ballots that Gore wanted to have recounted in Miami-Dade. But why exclude overvote ballots, either in Miami-Dade or elsewhere? [b]Indeed, why exclude the ballots that machines had registered as valid votes, some of which may have proved to be invalid when subjected to human scrutiny?[/b] The partial statewide recount only reduced the one-sided geographic discrimination in the initial manual recount, without curing it."

While SCOTUS itself was arguably a bit unclear on this, the only possible way that invalid ballots among the valid votes could be identified would be for all of the valid votes to get manually recounted. I really don't see how exactly one can interpret this sentence any differently. Just like Florida's voting machines could have improperly rejected ballots, they could have also mistakenly accepted ballots, and SCOTUS identified the lack of a correction for both of these things as problems with Florida's manual recount. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)