You have to respect the consistency and determination of a man like Michael Moore. He was alternately boo'ed and cheered at the Oscars last night when he accepted his award for "Bowling for Columbine," which some have called the "Best Documentary of All Time." When asked about his controversial speech, he said, "I'm an American, and you don't leave your citizenship when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre. What's great about this country is that you can speak your mind." I was watching when he gave his speech, and I believe the booing kicked in when he said, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president." What Michael Moore said was true. Bush won the election due to the accidents of the methods used to tally the votes, and through agressive legal action which ultimately led to his effective appointment by the US Supreme court and the Florida legislature. It is true that, had Gore won his requested recount, he still would have lost. A more thorough recount was completed, however, and it seems pretty clear that, in precise literal terms, more people in Florida voted for Gore than for Bush. About 200 more. Many in the Bush camp have complained that the counting of "overvotes" and "pregnant chads" is an absurd liberal trick. In statistical terms, however, it is a simple fact that counting such such ballotts cannot bias the results toward one candidate or another. An "overvote" is a ballott in which a candidate's name is both punched and written in. Obviously the voters in these cases display a clear intention to vote for their doubly-selected candidate. A "pregnant chad" is a ballott in which a chad has been depressed but not fully detatched. The machines interpret these as empty votes. It is, however, more likely that the voter indended to vote for the candidate than to cast no vote at all. Counting these ballotts does not, in principle or in fact, create any statistical bias. It is merely a procedure for fairly counting the vote of every citizen. When I make this argument, people often respond with some jab at "Gore-worshippers," assuming that I am some sort of Gore sheep. Honestly, though, I did not even vote for Gore. I may prefer Gore to Bush, but I don't really like him that much. I am not that interested in Gore per se. I am interested in factual statements and fair elections, and I am fairly convinced that Bush was not constitutionally elected. That's different from saying Bush should step down. I also think the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was not constitutionally ratified, but I don't think we should get rid of it. I think, instead, that we should acknowledge that our system has erred and make sure it doesn't happen again.