According to the NY Times today, if there's an injunction against certifying the Florida votes when the Electoral College meets, they just won't use the Florida votes at all.

According to the law, the winner of the election is the person who amasses the majority of the states present and certified at the time of the Electoral College balloting.

That would be Gore.

PS: The article was written by Adam Clymer, otherwise known as 'that major league a**hole'.


>>Yes, that's what I've heard [voting discrepeny], but I have not seen the numbers to back it up yet.
>
>I haven't, either. It will be interesting if it's true.
>
>>I frankly don't care which one wins, I never liked or disliked either candidate strongly enough to matter, IMO either one is capable of handling the presidency well enough. But I do care about the future of the nation, and would like to be quite certain that virtually all votes were correctly punched and tabulated. I think it will have a lasting ill-effect of there's a feeling by about 50% of the voters that the election is seriously tainted by one county in Florida. So, I think something like this should be straightened out thoroughly now, no matter who wins, even if a "runoff" is required.
>>
>>That said, I would certainly grant the Bush supporters every right to demand re-counts in closely-lost states, and any oddities (like the St Louis thing) investigated too. Fair's fair.
>
>Of the two-party candidates, I'm for Bush. I don't really like either of them. Lesser of two evils, thing...
>
>Michelle