Can anyone source the claim "The recount showed Gore won Florida"?

I've seen this claim a number of places, but would like as iron clad a source for it as I can find. I must admit, I'd never seen the claim until last month, so I may be asking for something that's well known around here.

Thanks.

--MarkusQ

P.S. If the claim is incorrect, a good source for that would be welcome as well.

it's true, just look it up. i don't want to open another window, i'm here at work. but you will find it on google.

The recount was done by a group of media reporters.

By the way, they recounted the whole state and Al Gore won. If they only recounted the counties that Al Gore asked for, Bush would have won.

it was said any way you counted it.. Gore won.

And the above is the only way ordered by the FSC and the USSC

The Media group report was ready 9/5 but held up to November so they could agree on the presentation -

The Miami Herald did a 3 day job where only the 3rd day reveals Gore won under all counting senarios (meaning different chad rules, or number of observers, or 2 out of 3 observers agree versus all 3 agree).

The NY Times and all mainstream media reported on the 4 county only recount results - under which Bush "won" a few variations - and lead with BUSH WOULD HAVE WON as the headline.

Once again - The Courts had only one standard - statewide with over and undervotes that show intent Counted - and that was the count that was stopped by the USSC treasonous 5 - and that was the count Gore would have won under all counting variations.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

Gore's Victory

By Robert Parry
November 12, 2001

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide.

was one of the papers involved in the total recount, that might be a good place to start. They recounted under 5 different scenarios and Gore won under one of these scenarios. Also The St Pete paper did a total state recount and I am not sure of those results

Link

http://legitgov.org/index_hot_April5.html

with a bunch of links to look over

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN WHAT 4 YEARS OF ILLEGITIMACY CAN BRING.

Basically, it was a university institute that was hired by AP, NY Times, etc. to do a recount. The report was supposed to be issued in September 2001. Guess what happened.

When it was finally issued about a year later, it showed that Gore won Florida if you recount the entire state. If you recount just the counties that Gore had requested recounting, Bush won. Guess what the headlines were?

Here's the study:

http://www.norc.org/fl/index.asp

As if there is any legitimate reason in the world not to have recounted all the counties. Grrrrrr

They also conveniently ignore the fact that Gore did not have the option of calling for a state wide recount. Without bush's agreement his next option was to ask the governor and the florida secretary of state.

The truth is that I want 2000 addressed and corrected more than I want 2004 addressed and corrected. My sense of justice won't ever be satisfied until 2000 is aknowledged and Bush Inc. punished for it.

almost like the media doesn't like to report bad news about the chimp.

Here's a good link that addresses the "confusion."

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/3973122.htm

They didn't want to question B*sh legitimacy by confusing everyone with facts about who actually got more votes.

...as I recall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

Note -- IGNORE the headline. Read to the third paragraph:

"But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes."

What is usually left out of the story is that the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of undervotes AND overvotes. That's one reason it was so controversial.

The last page here also spells it out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11_4.html

M. Moore's F/911 has a clip of news analyst (somebody I think that might work for Fox, yipes) saying something like "Under EVERY scenario Gore won the election"

As prepared by MSM media whores, but its comprehensive and would not be regarded as a 'non-biased' sumamry by most readers.


http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12ASSE.html
Who Won Florida? The Answer Emerges, but Surely Not the Final Word

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12NUMB.html
Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/politics/15BALL.html
How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Florida recount study: Bush still wins
Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory

There used to be an article linked to from the NORC website that laid out the analyses done by the NORC statisticians and the conclusions they drew. The document was hosted on the American Statistical Association website but is no longer there.

If you go to the NORC website:
http://www.norc.org/fl/index.asp
and then click Articles on the left then you'll see a link over on the right side to this URL:
http://www.amstat.org/misc/PresidentialElectionBallots.pdf

This URL was fine a couple of weeks ago. Try it now and you'll see the article is no longer at that URL.

Does anyone have this article saved or know where it might be cached?

I got this message when trying to access the NORC document:

Sorry, no document could be found matching your request.

Reasons for this error include:

The address was entered incorrectly.
(Can't be that, I used the link on the NORC page!)

The document that you are looking for no longer exists.
(Most likely. Probably removed so we can't send people here to prove that Gore really won Florida. Have you ever told anybody that Gore really won? They look at you like you have two heads!)

The document has been moved to a new location.
(In other words... it's been deep-sixed!)

How Bush Lost Florida But Won
In The Supreme Court And The Media

by jerry politex, www.bushwatch.com

Ever since Bush was selected by the Supreme Court by a vote of 5-4 to take over the U.S. presidency, the Dems have said that a fair and thorough recounting of the Florida vote would prove that Gore won. While the jury is still out on whether the reported Consortium recount, published late Sunday November 11, was fair and thorough, let's assume that it was. What does it tell us? It tells us that Gore won the Florida electoral vote, the U.S. Supreme Court took the presidency away from him, and the media is wrong in reporting otherwise. Here's how Bush lost Florida.

First, it is an established fact that Gore beat Bush in the national popular vote by over a half million votes. (*) Secondly, Consortium interpretations of the voting data conclude that thousands more people voted for Gore in Florida than Bush. The problem for Gore is that many more votes in his favor, such as the Palm Beach butterfly votes, were declared invalid than similar votes for Bush. Third, discounting such unretrievable invalid votes, Consortium interpretations, which allow only fully-punched ballot cards and correctly marked optical scaned ballots, conclude that Gore still beat Bush in a statewide recount in Florida by a thin margin of over 100 votes. Which brings us back to the Supreme Court decision.

In its Dec. 12 decision the Supreme Court indicated that its conclusions were based upon equal protection law, and decided that in order to have equal voter protection in Florida the entire state should be recounted. However, even though there were weeks left for such a recount prior to the formal reception of the states' electoral college votes in Congress, the court decided that there wasn't enough time for such a recount, so five of nine members of the court decided, along party lines, to select Bush as the winner in Florida. The Consortium data indicates that they were wrong to think that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida. At any rate, in its Dec. 12 decision the Court made clear that if it hadn't selected Bush, its fallback decision would have been to call for a statewide election, since it considered the case to be a matter of equal rights. It further indicated that not taking a position on the matter was not an option.

Strangely, not one media member of the Consortium has reached the conclusion that if the Supreme Court had not selected Bush, Gore would have won the election by a Florida recount. Instead, in every instance of Consortium reporting, the big headlines say the data shows Bush won with more "valid votes," that he won because of
the partial recount mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, or that he won because he would have had more votes than Gore under Gore's recount request. Buried in some of the stories are the six ways that Gore could have won. However, all of these suppositions are moot.

The unvarnished fact is that the U.S. Supreme Court had the final say on the election, not the Consortium voting data, and, left with the choice of giving the election back to the people of Florida through a statewide recount or selecting Bush, they selected Bush. That's what makes the New York Times headline for the Consortium story particularly egregious: "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast The Deciding Vote." While the headline represents a badly needed attempt to restore credibility to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fails on the facts and it fails because the media cannot do what the Court, itself, has failed to do since its politicized decision in the case of Bush vs. Gore.

(*) All documentation may be found at http://www.bushwatch.net/gorebush.htm.

(c) copyright 2001. May be reprinted with attribution and link to www.bushwatch.com

Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!
It turns out the U.S. Supreme Court really did cast the deciding vote ...
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 1:18 AM PT
Slate.

Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncovered the hidden cache of valid, uncounted "overvotes"—seemingly double-voted ballots that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it.

Gore instead focused on "undervotes," ballots that initially registered no vote at all. It has been widely assumed that the real-life, statewide recount of Florida votes that was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court a year ago—and then abruptly stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court—was also limited to undervotes. Certainly the Florida court's opinion focuses on undervotes.

But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, Dec. 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."

Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized 'I'd be open to that.'

"If that had happened," the Sentinel notes, "it would have amounted to a statewide hand recount. And it could have given the election to Gore," since salvaging the valid overvotes turns out to have been "Gore's only path to victory." Lewis had apparently planned a hearing for later that Saturday, at which the overvote issue was going to be discussed.

Why is this significant? Because the comforting, widely publicized, Bush-ratifying spin given to the recent media recount by the New York Times (and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post) has been that—as the Times' lede confidently put it—"George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." (The Times' front-page headline was "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.")

We now know, thanks to the Sentinel, that this Times take (and the somewhat more hedged ledes in the Journal and Post) is thoroughly bogus—unfounded and inaccurate. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won. Certainly the Times doesn't know otherwise.

That Judge Lewis would probably have counted the overvotes at the perverse (in hindsight) urging of the Bush camp (which either wanted to delay the proceedings or erroneously thought the overvotes would boost Bush's total) doesn't alter this conclusion.

It looks as if the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who stopped the Florida count cast the deciding vote after all.

P.S.: Does this mean Gore's undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn't foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on Dec. 9, it was almost too late to count them before Dec. 12, the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore's lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida's electors. Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, as this Sentinel companion story suggests. Had Gore instead asked for a full statewide recount immediately after the Nov. 7 election, as some of his aides urged, there would have been plenty of time to count both undervotes and overvotes before Dec. 12.