ASHINGTON - By asking a federal judge to stop the hand recount of the Florida presidential vote, George W. Bush's campaign is taking two carefully measured risks: that it can persuade a court of law to prevent Al Gore from potentially winning the presidency, and that it can win in the equally important court of public opinion after initially deriding the idea of turning the election over to lawyers.
The Bush campaign took this high-risk strategy only after becoming convinced that it was even riskier to allow the Florida vote - and the presidency - to be determined by hand counts conducted by local election boards. The hand counts are being conducted in Democratic counties where the Bush camp believes Gore will have an advantage.
But the Bush decision to go to court could backfire if the public sees the Bush action as hypocritical, coming just a day after aides to the Texas governor criticized the Gore camp for backing voter lawsuits. Moreover, while Bush aides argued yesterday that hand counts are unreliable, Republicans have accepted them. Indeed, on Friday, a hand count of several hundred ballots in New Mexico put Bush at least temporarily in the lead in that state, and no one in the Bush campaign was suggesting that the results be thrown out.
''I think that they are going to leave parts of the public very puzzled as to why they are the ones going to court,'' said Jan Baran, an election law lawyer who has worked for Republicans in the past. ''It is mysterious and it does hurt their consistency and credibility.''
But the reason for the action is clear, according to James Glaser, chairman of the political science department at Tufts University. ''It is very clear that they do fear this will turn things around,'' Glaser said, referring to the possibility that Gore would win the presidency as a result of the hand recount.
The Bush camp also faces a dilemma that, until now, has received little notice. Bush must decide by Thursday whether to seek a recount in Iowa, which Gore won by a narrow margin. Bush has more time to seek a recount in three other close states, but there are some circumstances under which Iowa's seven electoral votes could become the key to the election.
Here is Bush's problem: No one will know until at least Friday who is officially declared the winner in Florida. That is when the overseas absentee ballots are due and will be added to the recount vote. The Bush campaign clearly thinks it will win more overseas ballots than Gore, and offered yesterday to have the Florida outcome determined by that vote.
But Bush can't wait for the outcome of the Florida overseas ballots if he wants a full recount in Iowa, because some Iowa counties demand a recount request by Thursday.
Gore initially was declared the winner of Iowa and Wisconsin by about 6,000 votes each. Moreover, Gore was declared the winner by television networks in New Mexico, but state officials are in the midst of a recount that has left the result too close to call. Finally, on Friday Gore took a narrow lead in Oregon.
While the deadlines for seeking recounts vary, they generally are within about 10 days of the election. In Iowa, for example, Bush must ask by Thursday or Friday, depending on the county. The three other states have longer deadlines. A New Mexico recount could not begin until Nov. 28, and the deadline for contesting an election in court is Jan. 8. In Oregon, the results are certified by Nov. 27 and a recount may be required if the margin is less than about 2,800 votes. The recount deadline in Wisconsin is mid- to late-November, depending on when all of the votes are certified.
Those four states have a total of 30 electoral votes, as opposed to Florida's 25. So if Gore wins Florida, Bush could make up the loss by winning the other close states.
If Bush does ask for a recount in those states - and if the presidency rides on the outcome in those states - then the Bush camp may want some of the counting to be done by hand. If Bush wins New Mexico by a margin smaller than the several hundred damaged ballots that were counted by hand, he would probably want those ballots included.
But in filing the request for an injunction yesterday, Bush adviser James A. Baker III said that hand counts are less reliable than machine counts.
A hand count, Baker said, ''would be less fair and less accurate. Human error, individual subjectivity, and decisions to, quote, determine the voters' intent, close quote, would replace precision machinery in tabulating millions of small marks and fragile hole punches.''
But that argument has not stopped Republicans from accepting a hand count when it has worked in their favor. While there is nothing comprable to a recount that could alter the outcome of the presidential election, there are cases where a hand count has helped Republicans.
Aside from the example of New Mexico, there is another case that might be considered especially relevant. Republican Connie Mack was awarded the US Senate seat in Florida in 1988 after a partial hand recount in Palm Beach County, according to news reports at the time. That is the same county where the most significant hand recount took place yesterday in the presidential contest.
But now Baker is arguing that the elections officials in Palm Beach County can't be trusted to do a hand recount.
While the nation has turned to voting machines because they are more efficient and are supposed to be more accurate, no one disputes that the machines sometime reject ballots that they cannot read, but which a person can interpret. In some cases, a voter will use a pencil to indicate the hole that was meant to be punched. That is why hand recounts usually result in a higher vote total than the original machine count.
Glaser, of Tufts, said that Baker's contention that machines are ''precise'' does not stand up. Glaser noted that US Representative William D. Delahunt, the Massachusetts Democrat, initially was declared the loser in the 1996 election. But when a hand count found imperfections in the ballots, Delahunt received extra votes and was declared the winner. In that case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said that indentations on the ballot signaled that voters meant to punch a hole. Those indentations were deemed by the court to be the ''voter's intention'' even though no hole was made. The machines did not pick up the indentation, but the hand count did - and changed the election result.
''The argument that hand counting is unreliable and machine counting is reliable just isn't going to fly,'' Glaser said. ''All it takes is to go on and show one of the hole-punched ballots with a little tab sticking off of the ballot. It's very easy to explain why the machine messed up.''
