[does not apply to this situation]
The same would hold true of the term `right', on your view. Well, you're close. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the term 'right' does not apply, just that it is redundant.
Observe:
1. What is a Vote? Answer: A Vote is a ballot which has been Legally Counted and Certified by a Legal Deadline.
2. Certified by whom? Answer: The state's Secretary of State, presumably.
So,
3. I know that SoS Harris certified the Election for Bush in her state, but did Bush really get more Votes than Gore?
Answer: The question is redundant. See questions 1 and 2.
In any jurisdiction there are standards for counting ballots. If there are standards, they can be applied correctly or incorrectly. We need someone who is an a position to settle controversies and so we give someone the final say so. They can blow the call, but there's no one with legal standing to reverse them if they do. What's at stake here in the denial of such truisms? What's so threatening about this picture that the leap to social contructivism seems inescapable to you?