It's a two-fer!

What can we say about post election fights? Nobody wins and the country loses a lot.

In fact, arguing about a close election is like having mom and dad scream at each other in front of the children--someone may be technically right but both sides end up losing!

Let's look back.

In 1960, Sen. John Kennedy beat VP Richard Nixon by 112,000 out of 76 million.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1960)

John Fund wrote a wonderful summary of the 1960 controversies--Chicago, South Texas and Alabama. Kennedy's name did not appear on the ballot but he was awarded the Alabama vote anyway:

"Congressional Quarterly, the respected nonpartisan chronicler of Washington politics, spent some effort in the 1960s to come up with a fair way of counting Alabama's votes.

Reporter Neil Pierce took the highest vote cast for any of the 11 Democratic electors in Alabama--324,050--and divided it proportionately between Kennedy and the unpledged electors who ended up voting for Harry Byrd.

Using that method, Kennedy was given credit for 5/11ths of the Democratic total, or 147,295 votes. Nixon's total in Alabama of 237,981 remained the same. The remaining 176,755 votes were counted as being for the unpledged electors.

With these new totals for Alabama factored in with the vote counts for the other 49 states, Nixon has a 58,181-vote plurality, edging out Kennedy 34,108,157 votes to 34,049,976. Using that calculation the 1960 election was even closer than we thought.

Remember this the next time a Democrat complains that President Bush "lost the popular vote."

As Mr. Southwick told me in 2001, "Camelot was made possible by the Electoral College. The same is true of George W. Bush's presidency.

Both were legitimate."(http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004320)

Did Kennedy win in 1960? He won the electoral college and was awarded a small popular vote victory despite some controversy because of Alabama.

Did Nixon have a case for challenging the results? He did.

Thankfully, Nixon did not challenge the elections. As a result, we were spared a partisan mud fight about dead people voting in Chicago, illegal residents voting in South Texas and Alabama's bizarre count.

It would have been time consuming for Nixon to prove these allegations and find the smoking gun. Nevertheless, it would have made great drama and hurt the country's reputation.

VP Nixon was under a lot of pressure to challenge the results. He did not. No one was more grateful than Senator Kennedy, who faced a divided nation with a weak mandate.

In 2000, VP Al Gore and Gov. GW Bush had another close election. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000)

Bush beat Gore, 271-267 in the Electoral College. He carried 30 states and Gore 20. But Gore had 543,816 more votes out of 106 million.

Bush won every recount in Florida, including the one done by several newspapers. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/)

Did Bush win? Yes, he did. Did Gore have a case? No.

Besides, how do you prove that some voters meant to vote for Gore but voted for Buchanan? How do you prove that? On the Bush side, how do you prove that the premature network call for Gore sent voters home?

Gore would have easily won the election by winning his home state of Tennessee or Pres. Clinton's Arkansas.

Give Gore Tennessee and he would have won the Electoral College, 279-259!

Give Gore Arkansas and he would won, 273-265!

On election day 2000, Pres. Clinton and VP Gore did not deliver their home states and that's why Gov Bush won the election. Florida was close and controversial. Yet, it would have been meaningless if Gore or Clinton delivered their respective home states to the Democrats!

Moral of the story: Win your home state!

In conclusion, Nixon was right in '60 and Gore was wrong in '00.

As we saw in Florida, these challenges divide the country and change few minds. Also, these challenges make extremists more extreme.

Florida gave birth to several myths, such as stories that people were intimidated from voting. Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and he wrote "The Florida Myth Spreads":

"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a six-month investigation of the charges and found absolutely no evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

The civil-rights division of the Department of Justice also found no credible evidence that any Floridians were intentionally denied the right to vote.

These findings did little to dispel the myth of massive disenfranchisement.

Politicians and activists persisted in circulating outlandish stories of nefarious schemes to steal votes, stories that became more numerous and absurd during the run-up to November 2004.

Speaking before predominantly black audiences, John Kerry repeatedly suggested that a million black votes were stolen in the 2000 election." (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200501100742.asp)

These myths, and the politicians who repeat them, divide us and poison our discourse.