Looking at this board, there are multiple posters who are knowledgeable about politics, but wrong about a factual matter, whether Al Gore really have won the electoral college in 2000. He didn't. Numerous investigations show he didn't.
When people are wrong about one thing, it suggests deep flaws in their sources of information.
The Rolling Stone article doesn't address the question of what the vote in Florida showed in 2000, or how courts should have responded. The article was critical of then-Governor Rick Scott's efforts to remove from voter rolls people who legally cannot vote because they were not citizens. That itself raises some complex questions. Is the only objection that there was too many false negatives? If so, what is the appropriate number of false negatives? The Obama administration have helped increase accuracy by providing access to the Department of Homeland Security‘s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cNlV_blog.html
Voters in Florida have had plenty of opportunities to show that they think Republicans went too far in cleaning registration rolls. They keep voting for Republican Governors, even in midterms that suck for national Republicans and feature open races where the GOP does not have the advantage of incumbency (2006, 2018).
But this still doesn't address what the ballots showed in the 2000 Florida presidential race.