Talk:2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida

What about uncounted Bush votes and invalid Gore votes?

Why is there no consideration in this article of Bush votes (for example from military personal overseas) that were not counted in Florida? The only votes the article appears to be interested in are Gore votes - and it is certainly not interested in Gore votes that were counted, but were invalid under Flordia law (such as votes from some convicted felons, or votes from non citizens).2.26.103.247 (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Article copy edit needed

This article as currently written is rather confusing. The text concerning the issue of "who would have won under various recount scenarios" does not seem to correspond to the chart below it -- or at least if it does match, it is unclear how it does. A significant copy edit is needed for clarity. I am not familiar enough with the material to do this, just pointing out that it needs work. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"outcome of one particular study" is the most hilariously biased thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. ~ Strathmeyer (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Even in the first paragraph, the phrase starting with "which" seems ambiguous as to the referent of this "which" -- the write up actually looks tendentious.166.237.65.6 (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Statewide Recount

In connection with the recent HBO movie, both David Boies and Ron Klain have claimed that a stadewide recount was indeed in progress and that the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. It is technically true that neither CAMPAIGN requested a statewide recount; the Florida Supreme Court did! In an interview with Charlie Rose, David Boies emphasized that what the Supreme Court stopped was a statewide recount. http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/5/22/1/a-discussion-about-the-hbo-film-recount. So I don't know that it's accurate for this article to state that a statewide recount was "never undertaken." Matt2h (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What defines a "statewide recount"?

Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore:

"Yet in the late afternoon of December 8th–four days before this deadline–the Supreme Court of Florida ordered recounts of tens of thousands of so-called “undervotes” spread through 64 of the State’s 67 counties."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZC.html

How do you define a "statewide recount"? Is that recount of all ballots, i.e. 6 million in this case? Or all of the spoiled ballots, i.e. 179,855? Or just 1% of the vote or 60,000 ballots, i.e. the undervote in 64 of Florida's 67 counties?

In Florida's 2000 general election, there were more than 6 million ballots cast. The order for a recount in Gore v. Harris (12/8/2000) was to recount just 1% or 60,000 under voted ballots. How is that considered a statewide recount?

When asked by the court in Bush v. Gore, David Boies admitted that the 60,000 number was correct.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: So, if you disagree that 177,000 ballots will be involved in this recount, how many do you think there are?

MR. BOIES: It's approximately 60,000, I think, Your Honor. It turns out to be less than that because of the recounts that have already been completed. But I think the total sort of blank ballots for the presidency were about 60,000.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/scotus/boies_12-11.html

Rustymustang (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Rustymustang

Citing only one media study?

This article only mentions (without actual citation) one media recount, claiming that it results in a Gore victory. It leaves out another media recound, by USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm) which comes to the opposite conclusion for most ballot counting scenarios.

I understand the need to edit an article to support your position, but shouldn't all reputable media studies be mentioned? And shouldn't the one media study in the article be cited?

Given that the study isn't actually cited, I wonder if it exists. But removing it from the article would probably be an overreaction without more research showing it's lack of existance. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Results

The date of "November 12, 2001," seems suspect, given it was a full year after the election. Now, this may be referring to a study with which I'm not familiar, so I'm not going to change it outright. But I do believe that serious editors should review the source material and correct this date if it proves in error.

104.35.43.128 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)