Talk Elections

     NY Daily News          November 1, 2000
                           They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for it.

                   Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are
                   preparing for the ultimate "what if" scenario:
                   What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses
                    because Al Gore's won the majority of electoral votes?

                   "Then we win," says a Gore aide. "You play by the rules in force
                   at the time. If the nation were really outraged by the possibility,
                   then the system would have been changed long ago. The history is clear."

                   Yes it is, and it's fascinating. Twice before, Presidents have been
                   elected after losing the popular vote. In 1876, New York Gov.
                   Samuel Tilden won the popular vote (51% to 48%) but lost the
                   presidency to Rutherford Hayes, who won by a single electoral
                   vote. Twelve years later, in 1888, Grover Cleveland won the
                   popular vote by a single percentage point, but lost his reelection
                   bid to Benjamin Harrison by 65 electoral votes.

                   The same thing almost happened in 1976 when Jimmy Carter
                   topped Gerald Ford by about 1.7 million votes. Back then, a
                   switch of about 5,500 votes in Ohio and 6,500 votes in
                   Mississippi would have given those states to Ford, enough for an
                   Electoral College victory. But because it didn't happen, the upset
                   over its having almost happened faded rapidly.

                   Why do we even have the Electoral College? Simply put, the
                   Founding Fathers didn't imagine the emergence of national
                   candidates when they wrote the Constitution, and, in any event,
                   they didn't trust the people to elect the President directly.

                   A lot has changed since then, including the anachronistic view that
                   the majority should be feared. But the Electoral College remains.

                   So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida,
                   Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270
                   electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?

                   "The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."

                   How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular
                   uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.

                   In league with the campaign — which is preparing talking points
                   about the Electoral College's essential unfairness — a massive
                   talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too,"
                   says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel
                   the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn
                   against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

                   Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the
                   clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team
                   Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud
                   as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a
                   catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser.

                   The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection
                   is small — the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors,
                   people chosen by the campaigns and their state party organizations
                   as a reward for their service over the years.

                   If you bother to read the small print when you're in the booth,
                   you'll notice that when you vote for President you're really
                   selecting presidential electors who favor one candidate or the other.

                   Generally, these electors are not legally bound to support the
                   person they're supposedly pledged to when they gather in the
                   various state capitals to cast their ballots on Dec. 18. The rules
                   vary from state to state, but enough of the electors could
                   theoretically switch to Bush if they wanted to — if there was
                   sufficient pressure on them to ratify the popular verdict.

                   And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the
                   other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently
                   getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just
                   further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we
                   wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

     NY Daily News          November 1, 2000
                           They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for it.

                   Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are
                   preparing for the ultimate "what if" scenario:
                   What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses
                    because Al Gore's won the majority of electoral votes?

                   "Then we win," says a Gore aide. "You play by the rules in force
                   at the time. If the nation were really outraged by the possibility,
                   then the system would have been changed long ago. The history is clear."

                   Yes it is, and it's fascinating. Twice before, Presidents have been
                   elected after losing the popular vote. In 1876, New York Gov.
                   Samuel Tilden won the popular vote (51% to 48%) but lost the
                   presidency to Rutherford Hayes, who won by a single electoral
                   vote. Twelve years later, in 1888, Grover Cleveland won the
                   popular vote by a single percentage point, but lost his reelection
                   bid to Benjamin Harrison by 65 electoral votes.

                   The same thing almost happened in 1976 when Jimmy Carter
                   topped Gerald Ford by about 1.7 million votes. Back then, a
                   switch of about 5,500 votes in Ohio and 6,500 votes in
                   Mississippi would have given those states to Ford, enough for an
                   Electoral College victory. But because it didn't happen, the upset
                   over its having almost happened faded rapidly.

                   Why do we even have the Electoral College? Simply put, the
                   Founding Fathers didn't imagine the emergence of national
                   candidates when they wrote the Constitution, and, in any event,
                   they didn't trust the people to elect the President directly.

                   A lot has changed since then, including the anachronistic view that
                   the majority should be feared. But the Electoral College remains.

                   So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida,
                   Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270
                   electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote?

                   "The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."

                   How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular
                   uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course.

                   In league with the campaign — which is preparing talking points
                   about the Electoral College's essential unfairness — a massive
                   talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too,"
                   says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel
                   the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn
                   against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

                   Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the
                   clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team
                   Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud
                   as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a
                   catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser.

                   The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection
                   is small — the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors,
                   people chosen by the campaigns and their state party organizations
                   as a reward for their service over the years.

                   If you bother to read the small print when you're in the booth,
                   you'll notice that when you vote for President you're really
                   selecting presidential electors who favor one candidate or the other.

                   Generally, these electors are not legally bound to support the
                   person they're supposedly pledged to when they gather in the
                   various state capitals to cast their ballots on Dec. 18. The rules
                   vary from state to state, but enough of the electors could
                   theoretically switch to Bush if they wanted to — if there was
                   sufficient pressure on them to ratify the popular verdict.

                   And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the
                   other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently
                   getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just
                   further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we
                   wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

Holy crap, shut up about Gore's losing in 2000 already.  I cannot believe we're still discussing this.

Gore won Florida

Unfortunately not officially.

-_-

Well, since a study conducted after the election proved that Gore would have lost under almost any precevable method of counting, I think your claim is bullsh**t, Mr. Moore.

If the media had actually tried out all the combinations under Set Standards and Ballot Design here, they'd have found that Gore wins most ways. Also the 2 What If ways that involve a statewide recount result in a Gore victory.

http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/

We all know Alan Keyes beat Obama. It was those crooked Libertarians that spolied the election for Keyes. :D

Mayor Daley stole the election from Keyes. :D

Alot more likely than Kerry winning Ohio, but still, I'm LOL at that.

In 2000 45 percent of all Black Voters in Florida were turned away from the polls for being black. This is a fact I just made up.

It's not a fact.

Nobody gets my jokes! :)

That's nothing; in 2004, every single election worker were Republicans and burned each vote for Kerry.  Then the media just made up percentages so people would be convinced that Bush won.

I would be jFRAUD Bizarro Universe. 

Actually, the Press did recount the ballots, and by all but the most restrictive standard, Bush won; if you completely disregarded the intent of the voter standard, no questionable vote counted, Gore won by 3 votes.  If the chad was mostly out, partly out, sorta out, Bush won.

Here is what was actually concluded:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Florida Court Standards:

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's own standard:

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

Now this was a very close election, the only way that Gore "wins" is that if you count people who voted for two or more candidates, or you count people whose intent was not clearly manifested.

Now, I would have favored a statewide recount, but Gore didn't, at least at first.  I really would not favor giving one person two votes for President in the same election.

Gore won Florida


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

I've stated real facts very clearly, and they haven't been refuted. I know you Republicans would rather argue do straw man arguments.

Speaking of facts and arguments, some of you Republicans have serious problems with those. Hint to J.J., don't get into an argument on statistics.

Mycollectivelyinterestingpaljfern73 has no credibility problems!

State some facts to back up that conspiracy theory.

Well, the fact that you chose to attack him rather than denying it might be one.

Hint to JFRAUD, don't make up stuff, at least that can be independently verified.

Its been over 4 years sence that election.  So much has happened to our country sence them.  Let me repeat (OUR COUNTRY).

Please Dems, get over it

You guys are still a major party, and have some ideas that Americans want to hear.  But when you keep living in the past the future will pass you by.

Hayes Set to Fight an Elecoral College Loss
November 6,1876
As reported by the New West Liberty Chronicle

Republican Presidential nominee Governor Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio prepared a group of former Grant Administration Lawyers to fight an electoral loss today. The Hayes Campaign states that they will, "Fight any voting irregularities in South Carolina, Louisiana, or Florida at any expense." The fear that Governor Samuel Tilden (D-NY) will attempt to "steal" the election is a constant fear for the GOP. "If he tries to steal Ohio or Florida," Congressman James Garfield (R-OH) stated, "Than he will ahve to answer to our legal team."

The last time a recount was called in American Presidential Politics was when General McClellan decided to recount New York in 1864, but he would have lost anyway so it was forgotten about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This above article is a s relevant as the real article we are talking about now.