A few paragraphs taken from the site:


America’s elections should be sterling examples of representative government. But the Florida fiasco in 2000 was just the opposite, an embarrassment to our country.  Unless we act now, we could see an even worse election disaster.

After the disputed presidential election, Congress allocated billions of dollars through the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) to improve America’s voting machines.

Trouble is, many election officials are installing voting systems with touch screen computerized voting machines that are vulnerable to the same problems as other computer technology, including crashes, power-outages, viruses, and hacking. Simple question: has your computer ever crashed losing important data?  Now apply that lesson to our democracy.

BTW, didn't the numerous private recounts (post-election) in Florida confirm that George W. really did win?  And weren't they done by newspapers not too friendly to Bush?

What they confirmed was that, EXCLUDING the disallowed ballots, Bush likely would have won by something around 1000 votes.  Based on demographic and geographic breakdowns of the districts that they came from, a statistical analysis of the 179,800 disallowed ballots would show that those voters would likely have swung the tally to an over 30,0000 margin for Gore.  Fortunately for Bush, election laws prohibit statistical probabilities from being used in recounts, so the fact that a majority of the disenfranchised voters were from heavily black, heavily Democratic precincts merely gives Bush a sigh of relief, and his opponents the knowledge that those who intended to vote in California would have voted in favor of Gore, had every ballot counted.

And I know, it's water under the bridge, and Bush is President (whether it's legitimately or not is moot at this point).  But only for another half year, because the Democrats will not make the same mistakes twice, and will defend their enfranchisement tooth and nail in this coming election.

Do you think a ballot punched for two candidates should be counted?  Use telepathy to find out who they meant to vote for?  If you can't probably fill out a ballot, you vote shouldn't count (assuming you were able to get proper instructions from the staff).  If you vote for Buchanon instead of Gore, you voted for Buchanon instead of Gore.  Democrats always assume that people of a certain class or race had to vote for their man, or it was a mistake.
 The main point is that there are reasonable rules for disallowing improperly cast votes.  Don't go crying to the Supreme Court if you man didn't win.
 One final point, people always state that Gore won the popular vote.  Forget the fact that presidents are elected by the electoral college, the claim is also probably incorrect.  Once Bush was declared the winner, they stopped counting the overseas votes (which were mostly GI's, who were mostly pro Bush).  If they had completed that count, it very well may have pushed Bush over the edge in the popular vote as well.

The fact is, we have election laws.  The LAW says that the military ballots that were late are DIS-ALLOWED.  But some would contend that is still a bogus justification for disallowing them.  Similarly, someone who was IMPROPERLY put on the convicted felon list would not have been allowed to vote unless they had filed for reinstatement.  Many folks would contend that this too is bogus.  In other cases, the ballots were disallowed because of flaws in the ballots themselves.  Still, 179,800 votes were disallowed, and over 53% of them came from three heavily black precincts in Florida, which is a HIGHLY biased effect that undoubtedly cost Gore 1000s of votes, no matter how it's sliced.

BTW, your facts are wrong.  It was BUSH who filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court, not Gore.  Bush sued to halt the recounts.  

BTW, the Military ballots that were not counted were FAR fewer than the margin Gore won the popular vote by in the country overall.