About the evidence regarding a manual recount: in April 2001 a media consortium led by The Miami Herald assessed how various recounts of “undervotes,” which did not register at all, would have affected the outcome. Two out of three hypothetical statewide counts would have given the election to Mr. Gore. The third involved a standard that would have discarded some ballots on which the intended vote was clear. Since Florida law seemed to require counting such ballots, this standard almost certainly wouldn’t have been used in a statewide recount.
The newspapers then applied the accounting firm’s findings to four standards used in Florida and elsewhere to determine when an undervote ballot becomes a legal vote. By three of the standards, Bush holds the lead. The fourth standard gives Gore a razor-thin win.
. . . .
The USA TODAY[/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder] study shows that Gore would have won Florida by 3 votes if this [fourth] standard were applied to undervotes. Because of the possibility of mistakes in the study, a three-vote margin is too small to conclude that Gore might have prevailed in an official count using this standard.
According to Krugman, Gore wins in 2 out of 3 scenarios; the third is unrealistic. The Gospel According to Krugman.
According to the actual study, 3 of 4 scenarios had Bush winning — and the fourth, where Gore won by 3 whole votes, was too unreliable to count because of the negligible margin.
Krugman’s prevaricating is, of course, a defense of his recent statement:
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida’s ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore.
In order to defend this statement in detail, Krugman resorts (as we have seen) to out-and-out misrepresentation of the study of undervotes.
Krugman’s latest column is titled “Don’t Prettify Our History.” How’s about just not lying, Mr. Krugman?
All this comes via the work of Richard Baehr, who provides the above analysis and much more. Baehr also skewers Krugman’s analysis of the overvotes, which (as far as I am aware) are never counted in recounts in any state anyway. But I stopped reading at the analysis of the undervotes. That was enough to conclude that, once again, Krugman is not telling his readers the truth.
If this were the only thing I had ever read by Paul Krugman, it would be enough to conclude that this man has absolutely no regard for the facts. His latest column is a disgrace, and he owes readers an immediate apology for his slipshod and dishonest work.
You will never see one.
UPDATE: Krugman doubles down in the form of a phony correction.