Hurdle 1 is to get people to lay their political leanings aside and simply be honest and objective; I know, easier said than done.
I was just trying to verifying to data and to my surprise a couple of the after the fact recounts showed Gore winning Florida. I'd always thought despite all the moaning and groaning from the left, the Supreme Court getting involved, putting an end to the endless re-re-re-re-re-counts until enough chads had fallen out due to excessive handling to change the results in favor of the democrats and the subsequent left-wing PR spin and dishonest politicizing, Bush won fair and square verified by every recount including a final after the election tally requested by the media under FOIA. However, in my research today I see its possibly Gore might have actually won Florida. I'm not sure what to believe? Not that it matters now anyway.
According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Floridaís highest court.
Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didnít detect any vote for a presidential candidate.
None of these findings are certain.
FactCheck.org : The Florida Recount of 2000
Being as honest a juror as you can be, who do you think really won the 2000 election?