>>In every election in every state there always is/has been certain percentage of under votes and other "errors" assoicated with an election, even at a local level.
>>
>>If we were going to recountvote why not recount in every state/county/city/district? Why was Florida singled out?
>
>Simply because the race was so close. If it took a recount in every precint across the country, then I would have been for it. In Florida, which was decided by a little more than 500 votes, it was important because the winner of the state would be the next president.


Didn't the Republicans offered to recount in couple/few other closely contested states and didn't the Democrats refused? - in those states Gore was pronounced the winner.


>
>Here're the facts. The winner of the overall popular vote was Al Gore (by +500,000). The winner in Florida was George W. Bush (by 500+). Given this, don't you think that you and I deserve to know who actually won? Right now, neither of us can say with any certitude we do. And that's why I favored a recount, not only in Florida, but any other state where the difference was less than 1%. The Bush people didn't challenge those states where they lost within that margin. Gore's people did, and rightfully so.

We do know for sure; under our electoral system Bush won. Gore's 500K+ probably mostly came from his victory in California.

>
>>I personally don't care who is in office, although I have a preference. This counrty is design to withstand any idiot who happens to be in office.
>>
>
>I agree here.

I knew you would.