2000 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:02, 14 October 2004

Revision as of 00:20, 14 October 2004

Line 242:

The [http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp Florida Ballot Project] at the [[University of Chicago]], sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a comprehensive review all uncounted ballots in the Florida 2000 presidential election, and reported how different layouts correlate with voter mistakes. Its findings were reported by the media during the week after [[November 12]], [[2001]].

Recounts yielded mixed results., Goreand woulda havefull wonreport anyis state-wideavailable recountfrom inAmazon.com which(<a all of the ballots were countedhref="http://www. However, Bush would have won amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312284527/ref%3Dnosim/nationalreviewon/104-7506486-4714352">here</a>) recount ifA justless smallercomprehensive subsetsstudy of(with ballotssomewhat werecontridictory counted.results) Herewas isperformed a summary ofby the NORC recount results performed using different counting standards, as seen in a report by a ''[[Washington Post]]'' journalist. [http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf]

<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0">

<tr>

<th colspan=3>Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000 (outcome of one particular study; not representative of all studies)</th>

</tr>

<tr>