From Krugman's 8/22/5 NYT Op Ed:

In November 2001 a larger consortium, which included The New York Times, produced more definitive results that allowed assessment of nine hypothetical recounts. (You can see the results at www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl - under articles.) The three recounts that had been most widely discussed during the battle of Florida, including the partial recount requested by the Gore campaign and two interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court order, would have given the vote to Mr. Bush.

But the six hypothetical manual recounts that would have covered the whole state - including both loose and strict standards - would have given the election to Mr. Gore. And other evidence makes it clear that many intended votes for Mr. Gore were frustrated.

Here's what gets me about the Supremes' intervention into the 2000 election debacle: federal election law, in archaic 19th century legalase, provided a method to resolve election controversies. According to the statute, the cite to which I've long since forgotten, the balloting from the Electoral College could have been questioned by either a member of the House or the College itself, in which case the controversy went to the U.S. Congress, which meant that since there was then a Repug majority, Dubya still would have been crowned the boy king. Why, then, was it necessary for five members of the Supremes to call off the process in Bush v. Gore?

No one has ever explained this to me. I even attended a local Federalist Society meeting (my one and only such meeting, fyi), to hear an election law professor who was willing to say in public that Bush v. Gore was properly decided.

What am I missing?

b.