Bill,

>>Indeed. And that's why,in this particular case, we should let the cards fall where they will. If Bush gets more votes he wins. If Gore gets more votes - he wins.
>>
>>Afterwhich you have the discussions over where mistakes were made and make legislative (read deliberative) decisions.
>>
>>What seems to me to be happening is the artifical 'ginning up' of victims who are being used to dreail what looks lioke a losing hand - and in the process once again trampling on the rule of law - at the same time they are hypocritically using that as their cover.
>>
>>These people have no shame whatsoever. Clinton surely is an accurate representation for your analysis...
>
>The problem in this case, of course, is how do you accurately determine who got the most votes? Ten recounts giving 10 different results ... which one do you use? :-)

Sure, but after two recounts, both of which still have Gov. Bush leading we now seem 'bent' on recounting until Vice President Gore gets more. This next Tuesday the election must, by law be certified.

>
>There is also the issue of the "popular vote guy ought to win" versus the electoral college votes ... and that it is theoretically possible for electoral college delegates to vote for the guy who did not receive the most votes in a given state.

That was resolved over 224 years ago and more recently the ballot recounting process was specifically resolved in Florida I'm sure to the great consternation of those who seem determined to change the obvious results.

>
>It will be interesting to see what happens. :-)

Indeed. I can only hope that Vice President Gore would simply conceed to the facts as they stand.

You know, he'd be very smart at this point to conceed, take the (unfamiliar) high road and come back swinging in four years.