>Jason,
>
>Unless you mean disallowing folks to vote for other candidates like Nader & Buchanan.

Is that not what a "runoff" election is? Basing a follow-up election on statistical groupings of candidates and removing those who essentially have no chance of winning? In this case, Nader, Buchanan, etc.

>
>Personally I think that even if there is a one vote margin that the individual with that extra votes gets the brass ring. The loser should demonstrate some grace and character and bow out like Sen. Ashcroft did. His was a demonstration of class (plus some political posturing for the future. <g>)

If, by that, you also mean state-by-state, I agree completely. I do feel, tho', that Gore owes it to the 49% of the population who voted for him to at least make sure there were no hugely irregular happenings. If that takes a few weeks and some "kinder, gentler" legal challenges, so be it. I would rather have that and be more certain than I am now that the final count is representative of what the public "said" Tuesday.

Yesterday, I made the comment more than once that this recount shouldn't matter... after all 2+2 still = 4, even in Florida :) Today, I'm wondering how all these votes could have been missed! Makes one wonder, what about all those other states where the vote was close... Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin. Do all of these states have automatic recount laws? I wonder how many will enact similar laws. I'm beginning to believe it's more than just a good idea!