Again, Matt, for your tired eyes: The studies indicate that Bush would have won any manner of recount. Now; you're trying to claim there was yet deeper fraud involved - I understand. But if that is your contention then you must take your argument to the national level and balance your "disenfranchisement" theory with opposite irregularities - like non-citizens, disenfranchised felons, deceased, duplicate, voters who did illegally vote in the 2000 election and likely lean Democrat. Are you suggesting that level of research should have been undertaken in all 50 states post-election?
Mattp defines a "fair" recount by one that garners the outcome he wants, just as he defines "unbiased" reporting of the news as reporting the story he wants, the way he wants it.