There's no such thing as a "ballot cast in favor of Gore". Until a ballot is legally counted, it is nothing but a piece of paper with (perhaps) some holes in it. By itself this item is meaningless, until it is converted into a Vote via some pre-arranged legal counting process (namely, a Rule determining whether a ballot is said to be a Vote For Bush, or a Vote For Gore, or a Vote For Browne, or a Non Vote, or whatever). By such a process, a ballot may be said to contain this or that vote, at which point it becomes a Vote.
Of course, the only legal process that can be in effect in this case is the one set up via Florida law prior to the election. According to that process, and the Votes which resulted, Bush got more. This is nothing but a historical statement.
using any standard one thinks would have been appropriate for counting ballots at the time.
Well then this converts it into a very weak claim. You are saying there's no contradiction in saying Bush is President even though Gore "got more ballots" using any standard under the sun for saying that this or that ballot was "cast for Gore". (One possible "standard": If the ballot has a hole in it, it was 'cast for Gore'. Another "standard": If the ballot exists, it was 'cast for Gore'....)
I suppose I will grant your point then. It is of course such a weak point as to be practically meaningless: YES, it is possible that more ballots were "cast for Gore", IF "cast for Gore" is allowed to mean anything one wants.
Big deal.
Compare: There's no contradiction in saying that a referee blew a call and saying that the call is final, binding and not subject to appeal.
The difference is that in this case it is not logically possible for the "referee" to "blow" a call (without actually violating the rules). In a sporting event, the "call" refers to some underlying physical reality, which may be checked via instant replay etc., and you are right that the "call" the referee made may be inconsistent with verifiable reality, and yet the call may be made to stand without any rules having been broken.
But in this case the call is the reality: The definition of a "Vote" is a ballot which has been (1) counted LEGALLY, and (2) certified LEGALLY, by the (3) LEGAL DEADLINE. If the Secretary of State certifies a batch of ballots legally, by the legal deadline, as Votes, then that is what the votes are. As long as she obeys the election law, she cannot "blow the call".
The call is the reality.
If you adopt my position, the claim that Bush won isn't hostage to a claim about the ballots that some people continue to contest.
But I don't have to adopt your position to realize this. All I have to note is that statements about "ballots" are irrelevant to statements about Legal Votes. And it is only Legal Votes which can participate in the determination of an election winner.
If you stick to your position, it is.
No, it isn't. Again, "ballots" are irrelevant until they become Legal Votes, in a legal manner, by the legal deadline.
All of which took place nearly a year ago, the result having been well documented, in favor of Bush, the current President.