Are the 2016 election results now more controversial than the 2000 results

[Burke859]

I think Russia-gate will go down in history as a nothingburger.  Even if Trump were caught on video laughing with Putin about how Russia should go to bat for his campaign against Hillary, Russia isn't seen as an enemy of the state today, but more as just another country with a somewhat questionable way of doing things.  It wouldn't be much different from Hillary doing the same with Merkel or whoever.

Meanwhile, 2000 was a legitimate toss-up in terms of who everyone who cast ballots actually meant to vote for.  I have no doubt that there were at least 500 more actual ballots for Bush than Gore in Florida.  I do wonder whether there were more than 500 ballots where Jewish voters in South Florida voted for Buchanan when they meant to vote Gore due to the butterfly ballot.  

I don't buy into arguments that election results are skewed by "long lines and intimidation."  If you want to vote, follow the rules, figure out how to do it, and get there on time or get your absentee in on time, IMO.  But in terms of the actual number of voters who thought they voted for Bush or Gore in Florida in 2000, I'm not sure that the confusing and for some reason difficult to punch ballots will ever allow us to know who actually got more votes when it came to voter intent.  (Though I absolutely think that Bush's win was the correct legal and procedural outcome given that human error does not negate the rules and the process).