"More Krugman on Election 2000


Today's column <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/opinion/22krugman.html>  is called "Don't Prettify Our History." It begins:


	The 2000 election is still an open sore on the body politic. That was clear from the outraged reaction to my mention last week of what would have happened with a full statewide manual recount of Florida. 

	This reaction seems to confuse three questions. One is what would have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't intervened; the answer is that unless the judge overseeing the recount had revised his order (which is a possibility), George W. Bush would still have been declared the winner. 

	The second is what would have happened if there had been a full, statewide manual recount - as there should have been. The probable answer is that Al Gore would have won, by a tiny margin. 

	The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin."

   With respect to Krugman's second question, the press-commissioned NORC study counted undervote and overvote ballots, and I think it is more than "probable" that Gore would have been the winner if all those ballots had been officially recounted.  It is a near certainty.  But a recount of all the undervotes and overvotes would not have been a "full, statewide manual recount."  Far from it, because the overwhelming majority of ballots were neither undervotes nor overvotes.  Furthermore, given the limited time available, it is risible for Krugman to suggest "there should have been" such a recount.  NORC did not examine the huge number of ballots that were recorded as containing one vote for president.  I think the general assumption is that it is unlikely that recounting those ballots would change anything.  But that was also the general assumption about the overvote ballots, before NORC looked at them.  It is conceivable--perhaps not very likely, but we don't know--that ther!
 e were a significant (absolute) number of ballots counted as containing one vote, that on reinspection might be found to contain markings sufficient to register a second vote, in which case such ballots would be disqualified as overvotes.
 
   Therefore, no one can say with great confidence what the result of a full, statewide manual recount would be.  Certainly, if I had to bet, I'd bet on Gore--with modest, but not great confidence.
 
          Best,
 
          Daniel Lowenstein
          UCLA Law School
          405 Hilgard
          Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
          310-825-5148