Did Bush Steal the 2000 election.

[angus]

Who won the election (what your poll asks) and did Bush steal the election (your subject) are not at all the same thing. I voted the obvious. Bush won; he is president today.

Good point. The question is whether this election was fair.
Technically you are right; he won. But, he seems to have one by only one vote. That of the deciding Supreme Court Justice.

Actually, the SCOTUS agreed 7-2 that the recount was unconstitutional.  The 5-4 decision to abide by the Dec 12th deadline was in agreement with the Florida Supreme Court's (FLSC) interpretation of Florida law.  

Any remedy beyond Dec 12th would have forced the SCOTUS to overrule the FLSC's interpretation of Florida law.  Such action would have been most extreme since the SCOTUS defers to the state courts to interpret state law.

Not to mention that under almost every scenario, Bush would have won a recount.

Face it: your side lost Florida because of the butterfly-ballot designed by a Democrat and approved by both parties.

Does anyone remember a time when it was not fashionable to brag about how stupid you are?  I do.  But by 2000, you had all these ninnies claiming that they meant vote for Gore but accidentally voted for Buchanan on the ballot.  My, the times are a'changin'  And otherwise intelligent Democrats all claiming, "oh yeah that was a confusing ballot."  Now, I've read your posts jmfcst and I'd be very surprised to learn that you genuinely felt, after having seen images of the ballot in question, that it would have confused you.

And yes it is a racist statement that blacks are less educated than whites.  But it is also a true one, statistically.  I hope political correctness (avoidance of reality when reality is offensive) is not making a comeback.  Sometimes there are statistical differences between demographics.  That's just the way it is.  The worst thing you can say about something is that it is false.  Can you say it is false that the overwhelming majority of blacks are poor and undereducated, and thus therefore more easily manipulated by democrats?  No, you cannot, so shut the  up.

[angus]

who in the hell dredged up this misguided thread?  Let's look at Dave Liep's excellent election atlas and see...Let's see..  Oh, there it is:

Bush 271
Gore 266*

*one abstention

looks like Bush won.  Any more questions?

[angus]

Senator Akno, if your point is that convicted felons should be allowed to vote, then I agree with you, as I stated in the other thread.  I have no problem allowing felons to vote.  If your point is that there were mistakes (identities confused), I'm not sure what to say.  Certainly there will be mistakes.  So far I have voted in four states (among them Florida) and so far I have *never* been asked to show a DL, passport, or any other form of ID to vote.  I find that noteworthy, don't you?  I'm sure voter fraud is very easy in this country.  

Still, in recount after recount, Bush wins.  Whether it's by 1800 votes, or 500 votes, or even one vote.  Even the Miami Herald sponsored recount after innauguration day Bush was shown to have won florida.

If you want to talk about sleaziness (and I'm sure it's a fair charge against the GOP), then shouldn't we take a moment to appreciate the irony in the Dems sending Richard Daly (Richard Daly of all people!) down to florida to complain about voter fraud.

[angus]

I'd like to get rid of the electoral college. It was founded because the men back then thought American voters as ignorant backwoodsmen. I'd like to think we've progressed slightly since then.

we probably have.  I go back and forth on that issue.  there are certainly advantages and disadvantages of the current system.  Consider that in the last 3 presidential contests, no candidate received a majority of the popular vote.  And no candidate is likely to in 2004.  In this respect, the current time is much like the late 1880s, with no strong leader around which a majority of americans coalesce.  The EC guarantees a majority.  And if there isn't one, then it redefines electors in order to ensure a majority.  (redefining being used loosely.  I should say, the 'electors' become one vote from each state delegation in the house.)  My point is that you'd not have had a majority of electors in those last 3 if the 'electorate' is popular.  

But that's not usually the main reason given.  I'll not repeat it, as you can look it up in this forum.  Dave Liep's election atlas has a nice link explaining the arguments in favor of and opposed to the current EC system.  You are certainly welcome to try to change it.  All it takes is a constitutional amendment.  Remember, more amendments have dealt with how we select our national CEO than any other issue.  And we're still not satisfied?!  Apparently not.

One thing that the explanation doesn't remind you is that there's no a priori reason to want to go to a popular majority.  Apart from that being a very hard thing to get, it also creates potential problems.  In 2000, there were legally mandated recounts in several states.  Since the first count put one candidate at ~48% and the other at ~48% of the popular vote, and they were roughly within 1/2 of one percent of each other (given that the MOE is probably greater than 1/2 of one percent, we'd call that a tie.  you'll learn more about statistics in college, but for now use your imagination) then we'd have a federally mandated recount.  If you thought the 2000 debacle was bad (and the problem was limited to one US state, as a practical matter, with only ~5% of the US population), think of how bad it would be for a nationwide recount.  Not that the current system precludes such a debacle, but it certainly reduces its likeliness.

Anyway, keep an open mind about federalism.