Remember the presidential election? There were the ubiquitous chads — dimpled and pimpled, pregnant, hanging, and swinging. Then there were the counts, the recounts, and the re-recounts. Today, we can add one more unofficial recount to the ever-increasing tally: The Miami Herald released the results of its recount of "undercounted" ballots in all 67 Florida counties. I know that you are eagerly waiting to know who the president is (there’s that whole clause in the Constitution that delegates power to the newspapers to decide close elections that turn on the results in Florida), but before I give you the results, let me remind you of what some of the luminaries have been saying since the election:

Enter the Miami Herald, which yesterday said that if the recounts had been allowed to continue, then "under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won." The particulars are as follows: Bush officially won by 537 votes. If Gore’s more liberal counting standard prevailed and all dimpled and hanging chads had been counted, then the Bush lead jumps to 1,665. If dimples only count where other races are dimpled (which would suggest a uniform error by the voter or by the machine, rather than a voter changing his or her mind before perforating the chad), then the Bush lead is 884. If two corners of the chad must be perforated, this being the predominant standard for recounts throughout the country, then the lead is 363. Finally, if only clean punches count, then Gore wins by 3 votes.

Several themes can be gleaned from this data. First, the methodology of the study provides substantial support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. The Herald analyzed the data based upon multiple counting standards, and therefore supplied multiple results. Why not simply apply a single standard, and announce a final outcome? Because, as the Supreme Court recognized, there wasn’t uniformity among the counties (or even within the counties) as to which counting standard applied. Gore supporters advocated continued counting exercises using variable standards, yet, clearly, permitting endless revisions to voting standards after the election was over was not the way to solve the problem, especially given the constitutional interest in finality that had been observed by the Court.

Second, the data suggest that Republicans and Democrats did a poor job of gaming outcomes — at least to the extent that they chose counting standards based on what they believed to be best for their candidates’ chances for success. After all, the Republicans wanted strict standards for votes (some advocating a clear-punch rule, while other advocated a rule permitting a vote where light shined through in a manner like the two-corner rule from the Herald recount), and Democrats wanted even the slightest marks to count. In the end, it probably didn’t matter, because almost any standard would have favored Bush, with the exception of the clear-punch rule.

Third, the study provides substantial support for Bush’s victory, and generally decimates the theory that Gore would have won if dimpled chads had been counted. But don’t look for this to decide the issue for Gore supporters. No sooner was the study released, then Bob Poe, Chairman of the Florida Democratic Party said: "My feeling is still that more people went to the polls to vote for Al Gore than went to vote for George W. Bush, and that some really bad things happened." Doug Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman, went further: "If you count every vote, Gore wins. This study confirms that Florida’s election system failed the voters.’’ OK. Why the sudden case of statistical impairment? One explanation is the faith of a true believer. Put simply, there are those who will never believe that Bush won, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. For these individuals, there is little I can say, other than to proffer other mysteries: The world is not the center of the universe, and, more amazing still, it is round, not flat.

Another explanation for this reticence is that the Democrats are relying on the stolen-election theme as a battle cry for the next election. When the DNC met and elected McAuliffe as Chairman, the "we-really-won-the-election" theme was the rant du jour. The party-faithful perceive the charge of electoral illegitimacy to be a motivating factor for voter turnout in the next election — and don’t let facts get in the way, thank you.

In the end, the Herald study provides a useful piece of data, which will be interesting to statisticians, historians, and unattached voters, but will probably not make that big a difference. Republicans were generally satisfied with the first three counts, and Democrats will not be satisfied until the prophesy of Gore’s ascendancy is fulfilled.

Robert Alt is an Adjunct Fellow at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University.