If you could change just one presidential election..?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2000 - Have the guy who won take office

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Florida legislature decides what electors to appoint, under the Constitution, period. They don't have to hold a popular vote, and if they do, they don't have to follow it.

Regardless of what I'm sure are your idiotic, obnoxious, discredited views on the Florida 2000 result, it's irrelevant.

Florida legislature appointed Bush's electors. He won.

Read this about the SCOTUS ruling:
http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

Anyways, they can't change the method of choosing electors after election day.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Tip: when trying to get someone to take you seriously, don't post an AOL Hometown page. Also, no Geocities.

And actually, they can constitutionally change the way of appointing electors after 'election day,' provided that it's before the electoral college votes.

But that's not what happened. Florida's SC tried to invalidate Florida statute.

Great, find some other webpage to read exactly the same thing here. It appears everywhere.
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=gore+exception&btnG=Google+Search

The FL Supreme Court was trying to have a statewide recount.  Plenty of counties never had any recount, they just submitted their original machine count again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

LMAO! What a bunch of sh**t!

The Supreme Court ruled that they could only take into consideration the current, exact circumstance, and that therefore the case should not be used as precedent.

By your logic, the Constiution should be ignored, because it's on an AOL page.

And doesn't that ruling on precedent strike you as odd?