# Fahrenheit 9/11 fact check: The 2000 election. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736 "2004-06-29T17:53:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/1 "2004-06-29T17:53:03Z")
At the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore shows a clip of Jeffery Toobin saying something like “So in \*\*every \*\* recount scenario, Gore ends up with the most votes (in Florida)”. This has always been a source of great confusion for me. For every claim that Gore would have won the recount there is a counter claim that, no, that’s only because condition X, qualifier Y and caveat Z weren’t considered. Same thing for claims that Bush would have won the recount. Let’s settle this once and for all Straight Dope style. 1. Does Toobin’s statement pass the truth test? 2. Under what conditions would Bush have won the recount? Under what conditions would Gore have won? 3. How \*\*should \*\* the disputed election have been decided? Complete recount of all of Florida; partial recount by selected precincts; Supreme Court decision; other? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/2 "2004-06-29T18:10:52Z")
As I understand it, a complete county-by-county recount of Florida would have yielded a Gore victory. However, Gore never requested a statewide recount; he only requested a recount in certain counties. A recount of those counties only would not have changed the outcome. (That’s from memory, so I invite anyone with cites to the contrary to come along and correct me.) ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/3 "2004-06-29T18:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Under what conditions would Bush have won the recount? Under what conditions would Gore have won? Bush would have won if they counted more of his votes than Gore’s. Gore vice versa 😉 Why are people still concerned with how the votes were counted? The scandal in Florida was to do with who was allowed to vote and who was prevented (and there are plenty of threads already on that). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/4 "2004-06-29T18:25:37Z")
I’m pretty sure there was an edict from The Cecil, to the effect that no more threads about the Florida Debacle would be contenanced. Tremble and obey! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/5 "2004-06-29T18:27:47Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > As I understand it, a complete county-by-county recount of Florida would have yielded a Gore victory. > > However, Gore never requested a statewide recount; he only requested a recount in certain counties. A recount of those counties only would not have changed the outcome. IIRC, Gore was allowed under Florida Election Law to request a complete recount of the entire state. He opted not to do so, however, to avoid prolonging the process. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/6 "2004-06-29T18:30:58Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > Why are people still concerned with how the votes were counted? The scandal in Florida was to do with who was allowed to vote and who was prevented (and there are plenty of threads already on that). Because that’s what Toobin’s statement was based on. This thread is mainly about verifying Moore’s facts, even when they are spoken through another party. Beyond that, Question 3 is still relevant to you. Given the fact that the polls were closed and voting was over when questions arose about the vote in Florida, what should have happened? Do you think that those who were not allowed to vote should have had another chance? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/7 "2004-06-29T18:34:35Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > As I understand it, a complete county-by-county recount of Florida would have yielded a Gore victory. I’m not sure how this could have been verified in any credible way. No one did or even could have done a statewide recount. > [@](#): > > However, Gore never requested a statewide recount; he only requested a recount in certain counties. A recount of those counties only would not have changed the outcome. Correct, as reported by most news sources. The [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story), for example, says: > [@](#): > > **Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds** > > If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida’s courts to finish their abortive recount of last year’s deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found. (That’s from memory, so I invite anyone with cites to the contrary to come along and correct me.) [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/8 "2004-06-29T18:46:25Z")
[Quickie summary](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html). Look past the headline and read the text. Toobin isn’t completely right; Gore would have won under _most_, not all, counting standards. However, it was clear from Judge Terry Lewis’ comments that he probably \*would \* have ordered inclusion of “overvotes” (ballots where a candidate’s name was written in as well as checked off, but were rejected anyway) in a statewide hand recount, and that \*would \* have made Gore the winner, the disenfranchised blacks and the Jews for Buchanan and the postmarked-after-Election-Day overseas ballots notwithstanding. > [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not sure how this could have been verified in any credible way. No one did or even could have done a statewide recount. Surely you heard of the NORC effort media consortium that did exactly that? It was reported widely, including in the link above and in the one you yourself just gave. If your concern is _credibility_, that cuts both ways. **bnorton** , to your last question, how should it have been resolved? In a way that most faithfully followed the Constitutional principle of equal protection, where every citizen had an equal opportunity to vote and have that vote be counted. The rest follows. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/9 "2004-06-29T18:58:23Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > Beyond that, Question 3 is still relevant to you. Given the fact that the polls were closed and voting was over when questions arose about the vote in Florida, what should have happened? Do you think that those who were not allowed to vote should have had another chance? I believe that the accepted resolution in cases where the voters intentions have been frustrated in a democracy by undemocratic means are for the people to take to the streets, set fire to a lot of things and make sure that the illegitimate government is soon fleeing the country in search of a friendly haven, somewhere in Africa maybe. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Agent\_Cooper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@Agent\_Cooper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agent_Cooper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/10 "2004-06-29T19:13:31Z")
Without answering the OP in re: to F911 factual accuracy, it is my understanding that had the whole scandal with the voter scrub lists denying many (majorly black) voters from ever casting a ballot, the numbers would never have been close enough for Bush to have had a chance. See Greg Palast’s “Best Democracy Money Can Buy” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/11 "2004-06-29T19:25:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Surely you heard of the NORC effort media consortium that did exactly that? My mistake. For some reason I was thinking there had to be a hand recount of all ballots, not just the over/under-counts. ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/12 "2004-06-29T20:21:50Z")
As to what should have happened, the results were within the margin of error, so a complete recount should have been mandatory to establish the true winner. Why that didn’t happen is simply shameful. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/13 "2004-06-29T21:00:50Z")
AFAICR that was the beauty\* of the Supreme Court decision: Florida had the right to do a recount, but whoops…. They also put a deadline for a few hours or a day(!) making finishing the recount impossible. Making it a decision that only could benefit Bush, It was so shameful a decision that even the Supremes left the building in secret. BTW the dissents of the court were so powerful that it would have been logical to see at least close to half of the mainstream media be critical of his “fraudulency”, as the media in the day, treated the one term president Hayes. The fact that even today it is hard to find explicit criticism of this act, in the mainstream media, was the item that convinced me that calling it the “liberal media” was a sick joke. [sub]\*That is, beauty in the eyes of the republicans.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/14 "2004-06-29T21:33:37Z")
Not that it has to do with anything, but does everyone still pretty much agree that more voters in Florida left on that day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush? That seems to be the case as far as I can tell. Again, that doesn’t mean anything, because our system can’t work on intentions, just predictable rules for carrying them out properly. But do even Bush supporters at least concede the former point, even if it is irrelevant? And would they agree, if so, that it’s too bad and shows the need for serious election reform that, unfortunately, still seems not to have occured in any serious fashion? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/15 "2004-06-29T21:45:09Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Not that it has to do with anything, but does everyone still pretty much agree that more voters in Florida left on that day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush? There simply is no way of knowing this. I think a better statment would be that the number of people intending to vote for either candidate was so close that the ballot counting methods in use were incapable of resolving the difference. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/16 "2004-06-29T22:29:14Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > At the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore shows a clip of Jeffery Toobin saying something like “So in \*\*every \*\* recount scenario, Gore ends up with the most votes (in Florida)”… It’s been a few days since I’ve seen the movie but I’m _almost_ certain that you’re paraphrase is incorrect. It was more like (paraphrasing from memory) “In every scenario that includes a **recount of the whole state** Gore ends up with the most votes.” Can anyone back me up on this or does anyone remember hearing it the way **bnorton** says? The answer to the OP’s question 1 depends on exactly what Toobin said. Is there a transcript on the web somewhere? ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/17 "2004-06-30T02:26:11Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > It’s been a few days since I’ve seen the movie but I’m _almost_ certain that you’re paraphrase is incorrect. It was more like (paraphrasing from memory) “In every scenario that includes a **recount of the whole state** Gore ends up with the most votes.” > Can anyone back me up on this or does anyone remember hearing it the way **bnorton** says? The answer to the OP’s question 1 depends on exactly what Toobin said. Is there a transcript on the web somewhere? There is a transcript of the first 43 minutes [here](http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&) and you’re right. According to that transcript, the exact quote is: JEFFREY TOBIN: If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election. ---
**Author:** ![Askia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@Askia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askia)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/18 "2004-06-30T03:03:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [Quickie summary](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)…However, it was clear from Judge Terry Lewis’ comments that he probably \*would \* have ordered inclusion of “overvotes” (ballots where a candidate’s name was written in as well as checked off, but were rejected anyway) in a statewide hand recount, and that \*would \* have made Gore the winner, the disenfranchised blacks and the Jews for Buchanan and the postmarked-after-Election-Day overseas ballots notwithstanding. Overvotes were NOT included??? A ballot with the candidates name checked off on the ballot corresponding with a write-in of that same candidate written by that same voter was ultimately NOT included as a vote for that candidate? Florida posts where in literacy rankings? Jesus. I can’t believe I did not know this until know. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/19 "2004-06-30T03:50:35Z")
This thread is supposed to be a “Farenheit 9/11 fact check” – and I’ve seen the movie, and based on that, and what I remember of the events of 2000, and what’s been posted above in this thread, **Moore got all the facts right.** There might have been a lot of things he left out (necessarily – including all the relevant facts of the story would require a full-length documentary about the 2000 election alone), but there was nothing he misrepresented or distorted. So if you want to find factual errors in _F9/11_, you’ll have to find them elsewhere in the film. If you can. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736/20 "2004-06-30T04:13:36Z")
OK. So a summary of the CNN quickie summary link furnished by **ElvisL1ves** is this. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) looked at four different scenarios in which a recount might have occured (see below). Three (#1, 3 & 4) were based on the statewide standard that **duality72** points out was the standard Toobin used in his statement. In two of those scenarios Gore would have won, but in one Bush would have won. Here is Toobin’s exact quote: “If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election.” My reading of this is that scenario #1 qualifies as a “statewide recount” in which Bush wins, which makes Toobin’s claim untrue. Now you can argue that scenario #1 is not a very good way to do a recount, but that is outside the scope of the claim. From a purely factual point of view it seems to me that Toobin and, by extension, Moore are incorrect in that claim. > [@](#): > > 1. Florida Supreme Court recount ruling **(Bush wins)** > > On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full \*\*statewide \*\* hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials’ determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast. > > Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore. > > 1. Gore’s four-county strategy **(Bush wins)** > > Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted – a hand recount in heavily **Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties**. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election – by a 225-vote margin statewide. > > The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios. > > 1. Use of Palm Beach County standard **(Gore wins)** > > Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted **statewide** , the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore. > > 1. Inclusion of overvotes **(Gore wins)** > > In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate’s name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a \*\*statewide \*\* recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. (Numbering and bolding mine.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fahrenheit-9-11-fact-check-the-2000-election/252736.md?page=2)