Study reveals large margin of victory

Electoral Map. Gore won.

A group of U.S. media organizations that sponsored a recount of the Florida presidential vote has decided to withhold the results of that recount, which was reportedly completed in late August by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of the University of Chicago. Although the consortium claims that the decision was made in response to the terrorist attacks, many have speculated that a more likely reason to withhold the data is that the findings could undermine the legitimacy of the Bush administration. Clearly, a comprehensive analysis of the recount, which was the most important news item for more than a month in late 2000, would be a salient issue today despite the obvious primacy of antiterrorism efforts. Certainly, the media have shown no reluctance to report on political issues unrelated to the events of September 11 and its aftermath, including the mayoral race in New York City, Strom Thurmond's health, and budget deals.

According to Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, the reason that the media has decided to suppress the results of their own study is that the recount resulted in a substantial margin of victory for Al Gore. In an article printed October 22, the Herald quoted David Podvin, an independent investigative journalist, as saying "Gore was the indisputable winner," according to a source close to the consortium. Podvin asserted that he was told that the margin of victory was large enough that it would have caused "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out."

And will the final count ever be released? A spokeswoman for the New York Times, Catherine Mathis, said that "The consortium agreed that because of the war, because of our lack of resources, we were postponing the vote count investigation. But this is not final. The intention is to go forward." According to the NORC website, the database will eventually be made public after the study's sponsors (the news organizations) have had sufficient time to study and release the counts, but "no timeline has been set for that process." When asked by Turn Left if they were planning to release their data should no media coverage be forthcoming, NORC declined to respond.

That Gore may have won Florida is not surprising to those who have studied the various recounts that have taken place since last November's election day. Although the official count, certified by Republican secretary of state Kathleen Harris and endorsed by then-candidate George W. Bush's brother Jeb, the Governor of Florida, indicated a Bush victory by a margin of 537 votes, the Miami Herald's recount of clear overvotes and undervotes yielded a Gore victory of 662. 

Butterflies?

When combined with recounts conducted in other counties by other newspapers, the Gore victory jumps to 1,236 votes. And if other factors, such as the "butterfly ballot" that misled many Gore supporters into ruining their votes, or, worse, voting for Patrick Buchanan, are taken into account, Gore may have won by as many as 46,466 votes, according to www.democrats.com.

Further evidence that the news consortium may have had unsavory motives for withholding the truth from the public can be found in the October 21 edition of The Telegraph (UK), which reports that the study was concluded in late August. Presumably, the media simply sat on the data for two weeks or so until September 11 gave them an excuse to "postpone" reporting on the recount. NORC was allegedly puzzled about the lack of coverage during the period between the completion of the study and the terrorist attacks.

Beyond suppressing the results of the recount, the American media has failed to inform the public that the recount has even been completed, leaving the American people in the dark. Major newspapers in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and Australia have reported on the recount and the decision to withhold the results, but American news sources have been strangely silent. Those few who do hear of NORC's efforts are confused and frightened by the coverup. "I find it truly extraordinary that they have made this decision," said Jane Kirtley, a University of Minnesota professor and media ethics specialist. "I am so chilled by what is going on."

The recount examined approximately 180,000 ballots which had been recorded in the official tally as overvotes (meaning more than one candidate had been chosen) or undervotes (meaning no candidate had been chosen) The recount was sponsored in January by a group of news organizations, comprising The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Tribune Publishing, CNN, the Associated Press, St. Petersburg Times, and The Palm Beach Post. Other news sources owned by consortium members include The Boston Herald, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and others. The vote to postpone coverage of the recount was unanimous.