The legitimacy issue.

[dazzleman]

I think that for the most part, the American people look forward, not back.  Also, except for those on the far left or far right, the American people have a very strong faith in the constitution.

Had Bush lost in 2004, there would have been a new president, and the issue would have been dormant.  I don't see how a former president could have a legitimacy problem, so maybe I miss your point.  I don't think the American people are going to fret over a presidential term that is finished, as long as Bush became president in a constitutional manner in 2001, which he did.

The Ford analogy is a good one, though doesn't perfectly fit the situation.  Ford was never elected, and pardoned Nixon within a month of taking office.  Yet, there was never any question of his legitimacy as president.  He was accepted as president as surely as if he had won a landslide.  Yes, his unelected position put him in a politically weak position, but his legitimacy was never questioned, and after he lost, nobody looked back and questioned his legitimacy retroactively, which I think is a ridiculous concept more apt to be found in some unstable third world country than the US.

Had there been a repeat of the 2000 election in 2004, that would have been most unfortunate, and certainly would have undermined Bush's popularity, but I don't see how it could be much worse than it is now.

[dazzleman]

Dude, I don't think too many people give this issue the in-depth analysis that you just did.

Certainly, Jeb's strong re-election in 2002 was a good sign for the president, since it did signal that Florida voters probably didn't feel that their preference was intentionally violated in the 2000 election.  And I don't believe it was.

Psychology is important, I agree, but I just don't see legitimacy being an issue once a president is out of office.  Every defeated president has a legitimacy issue to some extent, with some people saying that person never should have been elected.  Carter is a good example of this.  But what difference does it make once the person is out of office?

[dazzleman]

Well it makes a difference for the decision system that put the person into office. If the decision system is psychologically viewed as being flawed, it becomes delegitimized. Also, if the person is perceived as having been put into office through unlegitimate means, then the actions of the presidency in retrospect come under more severe criticism.

Of course it's absurd to say the events of 2002 could have impacted or told us anything about who actually got more votes (or intended votes) in 2000, but psychologically, voters are seen as having ratified the decision-making process that occured post-2000 (whether it was "just" or not), and that is what is important from the standpoint of legitimacy.

I guess the most vulnerable institution was the Supreme Court, since it ruled in the Bush vs. Gore case on the recounts.  I think it's unfortunate how bitter the whole thing became, because it could have been handled a lot better.

I agree with you about the psychological impact to institutions that are around after the disputed president leaves office.  Of course, if the decision was made by an 1876-style commission, I guess it wouldn't matter since the commission was not an ongoing entity.

[dazzleman]

Well it makes a difference for the decision system that put the person into office. If the decision system is psychologically viewed as being flawed, it becomes delegitimized. Also, if the person is perceived as having been put into office through unlegitimate means, then the actions of the presidency in retrospect come under more severe criticism.

Of course it's absurd to say the events of 2002 could have impacted or told us anything about who actually got more votes (or intended votes) in 2000, but psychologically, voters are seen as having ratified the decision-making process that occured post-2000 (whether it was "just" or not), and that is what is important from the standpoint of legitimacy.

I guess the most vulnerable institution was the Supreme Court, since it ruled in the Bush vs. Gore case on the recounts.  I think it's unfortunate how bitter the whole thing became, because it could have been handled a lot better.

I agree with you about the psychological impact to institutions that are around after the disputed president leaves office.  Of course, if the decision was made by an 1876-style commission, I guess it wouldn't matter since the commission was not an ongoing entity.

Perhaps, but voters don't have the opportunity to express their opinions of the court or the commission, so their next chance at the ballot must be a judgement on something that acts as a proxy for all those things.

The commission doesn't matter since it went out of existence after the election.  But the Supreme Court relies on implied public support, even though the public doesn't directly elect the members and they can't be removed by the public.  If the public really believed that the Supreme Court had been egregiously wrong, Bush would have been defeated and support for the court would have been imperiled.  So I guess we're agreeing, at least partially.

The Supreme Court, and the courts in general, must be careful not to overstep their bounds because they have no enforcement mechanism, and if the public is disgusted enough with the courts, the executive branch can simply defy their rulings.