One year later, the truth finally comes out. So why is the media refusing to admit Bush's defeat? John K. Wilson comments.

The long-awaited and delayed media recount of the 2000 elections, conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, was finally announced on Nov. 11. Anyone reading the newspapers and watching the media must have concluded that George W. Bush won after all, and anyone who disagrees is guilty of sour grapes.

The truth is the recount clearly establishes that Al Gore would have been president if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount.

As the Associated Press noted, "In the review of all the state's disputed ballots, Gore edged ahead under all six scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide." These were the only possible scenarios permitted under the US Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore.

Yet the headlines of the major papers on Nov. 12 almost universally declared Bush the "real" winner: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds" (Los Angeles Times); "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote" (New York Times); "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help" (Wall Street Journal); "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" (Washington Post).

Some media organizations decided to play it both ways: "Bush Won Recounts" and "Statewide recount might have made Gore a winner," noted the Palm Beach Post in two different stories on Nov. 12, while the AP declared "Vote Review: Bush Would Have Won Fla." and "Florida Review Shows Narrowest Margin."

"Still too close to call," reported the Chicago Tribune, reflecting the paper's reluctance to call any close election ever since Dewey defeated Truman.

Only a few alternative media outlets announced Gore's victory correctly, such as National Public Radio and progressive media websites and magazines.

Among large newspapers, the Chicago Sun-Times (in a story relegated to page 3) may have come the closest to the truth: "Gore could have won with statewide recount" was the title of the report. However, the subhead said, "But review shows narrower strategy still favor Bush." The story went on to declare: "George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount."

What the story neglected was that Gore never needed to "pursue and gain" a statewide recount: all he needed was for the US Supreme Court to allow the constitutionally required recount to proceed.

The fact that Al Gore stupidly did not pursue a statewide recount or one including overvotes has absolutely no legal relevance. The US Supreme Court, not Al Gore or the media, decided how a recount must be conducted. Voters, not Al Gore, have the constitutional right of equal protection in Florida, and the fact that the recount might proceed in violation of that right was the justification for the ruling.

In Bush v. Gore, the US Supreme Court made two rulings: one decision, by a 7-2 vote, overturned the partial recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in accord with Florida law. The US Supreme Court gave three reasons why this recount violated the constitutional demands for equal protection: It failed to include overvotes; it failed to recount votes in every county; it failed to follow a consistent standard. It would have been easy to make a constitutional recount that, we now know, would have given Florida to Gore.

However, the US Supreme Court's second decision in Bush v. Gore prevented this. The Court stopped any recount because it claimed, in a 5-4 ruling, that Dec. 12 was the final deadline for a certified result (because after that date, the result could be challenged in Congress).

However, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court was simply imagining a deadline without any statutory or legal authority. Nothing in Florida election law holds that Dec. 12 was the deadline for declaring a final result. Dec. 18, when electors met to vote, was the real deadline, and it was even possible to have two sets of electors and declare the correct one later in the month.

The media presented the recount of votes as it were a butterfly ballot buffet, and the inept Gore team simply chose the worst entrée. But in reality, there was only one constitutional way to count the ballots: recount all the ballots (including both overvotes and undervotes) in all the counties according to a consistent standard. According to this standard, Gore won.

There was plenty of time to set consistent standards for the recount and complete the process. Could Al Gore have won the presidency in that case? Absolutely yes.

If the Florida electors remained in dispute after Dec. 12, Florida would send a contested slate of electors' votes to Congress. In a party-line vote, the Republican House and the Senate (which, because of the Nader voters who elected Maria Cantwell to a narrow victory in Washington, was split 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting a tie-breaking vote) would disagree.

Then under Title 3 of federal law, Section 1.15, the decision on contested electors in Florida would go to the slate certified by the governor of the state: Jeb Bush. However, the governor doesn't get to pick anybody he wants. Under Florida law, the governor must certify the winner determined by the election process, as decided by the Florida courts. Unless someone decided to violate the Consti-tution, Gore would have won.

It's hard to know whether the media's false reporting about the election was caused by patriotic fervor or mere incompetence. The threat to democracy posed by an unelected president ruling the country is bad enough. But when a corrupt process is covered up by the media who pretend to serve the public, democracy ought to be put on the endangered species list. Instead of pushing for reforms that might prevent the scandal of the 2000 elections from ever being repeated, the media lied about and helped to suppress the results of their own million-dollar study in order to support an illegitimate president.

John K. Wilson is the author of How the Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People: A Tactical Manual for Pragmatic Progressives (NYU Press, 2001), and co-founder of the Indy newspaper.