Did Bush Steal the 2000 election.

[PBrunsel]

When I run for my third term, I'm going to say to my class:

"This is getting a little monotonous for us both, don't you think?"

The same thing Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes said to FDR while rehersing for FDR's third inaugural.

[Dr. Cynic]

I thought it would be appropriate.

[Akno21]

Sucks for them. The point is Bush is President and Al Gore is nothing.

I guess you aren't a compassionate conservative.

[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.  

[Dr. Cynic]

It's just the EC really has no real purpose except to piss people off, like politics in general.

[Akno21]

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.

Katherine Harris and high-ranking Florida officals ordered a list of names to be made of people who names should be barred from the voting rolls. Jerry M. Brown was a convicted felon, and therefore unable to vote. But, in many cases, people with names like Jerry N. Brown weren't allowed to vote. And in most cases, those were minority voters who would have voted for Gore.

[Bogart]

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.

Katherine Harris and high-ranking Florida officals ordered a list of names to be made of people who names should be barred from the voting rolls. Jerry M. Brown was a convicted felon, and therefore unable to vote. But, in many cases, people with names like Jerry N. Brown weren't allowed to vote. And in most cases, those were minority voters who would have voted for Gore.

So, what this really says to me is that we should be requiring definitive ID at the polling booth, rather than allowing felons to vote as a method of preventing non-felons with the same name from being disenfranchised.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the fact that Bush won a disputed election partially accounts for the reason that peeps either love him or hate him.

I regularly meet Americans in Durham and no one seems to be indifferent towards him.

Dave