What have they been using for the "recount" to come up with these totals--the original tainted and skewed tallies from the "official counters" of each contested county? I don't remember the rest of the counties doing a full undervote/overvote recount of rejected ballots (started to, but stopped mid-count). How could the reviewers take the under/overs from these non-counted counties into account? Or being Bush counties, were they simply ignored again? Did the reviewers start over from scratch, scrutinizing every chad in the state? Were they handling the original mutilated ballots when they reached their new conclusions?
The counters in Nov. 2000 were knee-deep in chad. That could only mean the ballots were compromised and the original intent of the voter could never be determined. Yet the counters "divined" the intent of voters anyway. I'm willing to bet the farm that hundreds of Bush-only votes were amended to be overvotes for Gore as well, to be counted squarely in the Gore column. So what's the newsies' criteria for recounting: bogus totals or bogus ballots? Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive....
They wouldn't dream of putting the nation to a vote again...George would beat Gore 90% to 2% (8% going to write-ins for Nader).
Of course it'd be more like 60-35-5, and Gore would win DC. It would be nice to have a complete revote...can you say Senator Lazio?