But that's not what I said. I already was taking your qualifications into account.
For the record I believe all the recounts which took place (apart from the first, legally-mandated statewide recount) were both unfair and unreasonable, because they involved either or both of the following:
(a) hand-counting ballots which were not meant to be hand-counted, and in circumstances where no tabulation or mechanical error had been discovered (only voter error). Hand-counting was only provided for under the law in cases where tabulation or mechanical error had been found (during canvassing), but because local election boards Wanted Gore To Win, they pretended that hand-counting was allowed in case of voter error ("dimples" etc) as well, even though voter error occurs in every single election, proving that they were cherry-picking;
(b) forcing Katherine Harris to allow such vote counts (or, more precisely, vote FINDS) to be added to previous, legally-valid vote totals, and to certify the updated results, even after the legal deadline for certifying the election had already passed.
Only by using the questionable methods that they tried to use would Gore have then won.
Right. And this is why I believe Gore would have won. Because it is a matter of historical record that they were prepared to using questionable methods, and indeed did so throughout the process. Understand what I'm saying now? :)
It looks like Kabar in the post above also had a difficult time understanding what you said vs. what you meant.
Hmmm, makes me think you may not be expressing your thoughts as clearly as you think you are. It happens sometimes.