Even though the Democrats won a majority of the elections this month and gained control of both houses of Congress, they still have to whine about voting irregularities that supposedly cost them races that they "should have" won. Front and center in this whining is Paul Krugman of that bastion of fair reporting, the New York Times.

His complaint in yesterday's pay-per-view column (published today in the Fish Wrapper)is about the race for Florida's 13th congressional district. It had previously been held by Katherine Harris, who had been Florida's Secretary of State during the 2000 elections (and who, according to Krugman, "infamously acted as a partisan Republican rather than a fair referee"). Harris chose to run for the Senate instead of the House this time, so the race was between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings. Buchanan was certified the winner by 369 votes, and so, in true Democratic fashion, Jennings sued, asking the judge to overturn the victory, alleging there was a "pervasive malfunctioning" of touch-screen voting machines in the Nov. 7 election.

Now before going much further, I believe a little context is necessary regarding Krugman himself. According to the Times' own (former) ombudsman Daniel Okrent, Krugman has a way of twisting the facts to suit his point of view:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

And when corrected, he's not receptive to any type of correction, as Okrent states later upon leaving his job as Public Editor at the Times:

This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper.

* * *

Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.

So anyway, Krugman goes on with his whining, but provides no evidence, (and neither does Jennings). They merely state that

An Orlando Sentinel examination of other votes cast by those who supposedly failed to cast a vote in the congressional race shows that they strongly favored Democrats.

You mean like those exit polls in the 2004 elections, Paul?

In that same Sentinel article, however, was this interesting tidbit:

The analysis does not -- and cannot -- reveal why no congressional choice was recorded on the ballots. It also cannot determine which candidate any single voter might have selected had he or she made a choice.

And the Sarasota Herald Tribune article provides this little piece of context:

...in the 2000 congressional race in Sarasota there were more undervotes in the contest, using an older paper ballot system, than occurred this year.

So there were more undervotes with paper ballots than with machines? Interesting...

One thing you definitely won't hear from Krugman is the other side of the story. Take for instance the Senate race in Virginia between James Webb and George Allen. Webb won with 49.59% to Allen's 49.20%, a difference of 9,329 votes. Allen is well within his rights to demand a recount, and Virginia also uses electronic voting machines. However, Allen, unlike Jennings, chose the high road, and chose not to demand a recount. Funny, though, you don't hear Krugman complaining about the possibility of an incorrect vote count in Virginia, do you? Apparently the truth only matters if it favors the Democrats, and the Fish Wrapper is alway willing to print that "truth".