>>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.
>
>Sure, but that's not how the Constitution has things set up. Bottom line is that if Gov. Bush or Vice President Gore get one more vote in Florida that the other should be declared the winner, scoop up those 25 electoral votes and start assembling their administration in preparation for January 20th.
>

The *other* should be declared the winner? Not sure I follow you there. By the way my statement about runoffs was for future consideration. In no way do I believe we should even attempt litigation now to change what all parties clearly accepted as the rules when the election was held on Tuesday.

>
>Well, since all humans fail and we're all human I'd suppose that human error is pretty evenly divided. <g>
>

You know, I would have thought so until yesterday. I'm curious why the vast majority of the votes that suddenly count now, as opposed to Tuesday, are for Gore? I thought for sure that there would be little, if any, change in the overall Bush lead. I think now there has to be a manual recount with much scrutiny from both sides.

>There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a lot of discussions on how to best ammend and enhance the current system.
>
>I'm perfectly comfortable with this..

So far, I agree. I'm betting on all hell breaking loose next Friday.