> > Voice Over: It is only when the state's *undervotes* were counted that
> > George Bush would have retained his lead.
>
> I'm not sure what point they're making there in the film, I assume they
> mean that crediting questionable undervotes (much more questionable than
> a ballot where someone votes for Gore and then additionally writes in
> "Gore") would have resulted in a lead for Bush.
I hate to be a stickler, Jenny, but can you describe a questionable undervote? I can't think of a sinle one that the Democrats would have been against in principle. I thought they wanted every dimple and hanging chad counted.
The reason I ask this question again is because, until I can imagine what a questionable undervote would consist of, that last sentence simply says George Bush would have won the statewide recount -- which contradicts much of the film.
To have that as the final sentence seems at best extremely incompetent, and at worst, in bad faith.
But hopefully it's the former, and once I understand the dastardly undervotes the Bushies slipped through -- or the overvotes they blocked -- then it will all be clear. But I will still resent that the filmmakers could end the film without explaining either crucial issue. Especially when that's all they would have needed to do to make this a great documentary. I was really enjoying it up until that point.
Do you or anyone else know of a URL that goes into all the boring details of the consortium count?
Michael