|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 07:11:20 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election?
#1
Bush
 
#2
Gore
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 84

Author Topic: Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election?  (Read 13672 times)
nclib
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,945
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2006, 10:11:59 pm »

It can also be argued that more people intended to vote for Bush in the panhandle, but stayed home when the networks first called the state for Gore.  We may never know.

IIRC, the networks called the state for Gore about ten minutes before the polls were going to close, so I doubt it would have made a huge difference.

I voted Gore (in this poll and in real life).
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2006, 06:11:08 pm »

Bush, by a landslide of 537 votes.  Get over it.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2006, 08:14:38 pm »

Gore.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,784
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2006, 08:22:28 pm »

Gore.  In recounts after the inaugration, if there had been a statewide recount, Gore would have won.

Where do you get this information from?  The recounts done by the NY Times (hardly a bastion of Republicanism) showed Bush the winner under the various counting methodologies.

If you want to argue that more people intended to vote for Gore, but messed up and lost their vote, that could be true, though it is probably offset by the fact that the networks called the election for Gore while the panhandle was still voting.

The bottom line is that more people voted properly for Bush.
Logged
Bugs
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 574


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2006, 10:23:41 pm »

Taken at face value, the argument in 2000 was whether to continue the recounts by hand, or to accept the machine recounts already completed.  Republicans came out in support of accepting the machine recounts, while Democrats argued to continue the hand recounts.  This argument has nothing to do with the politics of either party, but we all know why everyone took the position they did on the recount question.  Resolving it in their favor would put their candidati in the White House.  If the 2008 election hung on the electoral votes of one pivotal state and the Republicans needed hand recounts to win, the entire country would make a 180 degree turn on the recount question.  Democrats would argue to stop the recounts while Republicans would want to recount every vote.  This thread is also a party line issue.  No one will be persuaded.  My avatar is blue.  Bush won.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2006, 10:28:40 pm »

The election was called 10 minutes before polls in the panhandle closed. So it is highly unlikely that this had much effect on anything there. Everyone who was going to vote would likely already be in line, or at least on their way to the polls to vote, and thus probably were unaware of the call for Gore.

Even if they were, it is unlikely that this would affect most people's decision whether or not to vote (voter turnout doesn't drop that much in presidential elections in which the result is preordained versus those in which it is predicted to be close). The fact that people would already be on their way as opposed to sitting at home when they find out means that they would be much less likely than most voters to let this information affect their decision whether or not to vote.

Even if they did decide not to vote as a result of knowing this, this would affect both party's supporters roughly equally. (Yes, there are more Republicans than Democrats in the panhandle, so it still affects Bush's totals more, but not dramatically more).

Not to mention the fact that choosing to not vote at all is a very different thing than having a vote thrown out due to a defective or inaccurate voting machine (which raises an interesting point...if having different recount standards in different counties was a violation of the Equal Protection clause, why wasn't having different types of voting machines in different counties which can be statistically proven to have a higher rate of rejection of votes not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?).

So I highly doubt this factor could have offset all of the other irregularities.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2006, 10:31:41 pm »

Gore.  In recounts after the inaugration, if there had been a statewide recount, Gore would have won.

Where do you get this information from?  The recounts done by the NY Times (hardly a bastion of Republicanism) showed Bush the winner under the various counting methodologies.


Media post-electoral studies/recounts
After the election, USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today [7], show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes. Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:

Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes.
Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes.
Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.
The study remarks that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard. It also remarks that there are variations between examiners, and that election officials often did not provide the same number of undervotes as were counted on Election Day. Furthermore, the study did not consider overvotes, ballots which registered more than one vote when counted by machine.

The study also found that undervotes break down into two distinct types, those coming from punch-card using counties, and those coming from optical-scan using counties. Undervotes from punch-card using counties give new votes to candidates in roughly the same proportion as the county's official vote. Furthermore, the number of undervotes correlates with how well the punch-card machines are maintained, and not with factors such as race or socioeconomic status. Undervotes from optical-scan using counties, however, correlate with Democratic votes more than Republican votes. Optical-scan counties were the only places in the study where Gore gained more votes than Bush, 1,036 to 775.

A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won. [8] However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request.

According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.

Including overvotes in the above totals for undervotes gives different margins of victory:

Lenient standard. Gore by 332 votes.
Palm Beach standard. Gore by 242 votes.
Two-corner standard. Bush by 407 votes.
Strict standard. Bush by 152 votes.
In 2003, United States citizens living in the state of Florida were asked who they voted for in the 2000 Election as part of the Statistical Abstract Census. The results showed President Bush receiving more than 1000 votes more than former Vice President Gore. However this result was badly tarnished when it was discovered that the man responsible for this census had links to the original Bush campaign in 2000.


This is excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Presidential_Election
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2006, 12:18:23 pm »
« Edited: May 02, 2006, 12:19:58 pm by Mike Naso »

Bush won the 2000 election. It was close, closer than I thought it was going to....and should have been. For a while...Bush lead Gore by a decent margin, and he had entered the race with a 20 point lead above Gore. The debates helped Bush, I think...especially the first one. Gore sighed and interrupted and seemed like a robot...while Bush came across as the "Im from Texas, I want people to keep more of their money"...much more down to Earth. In the end, Bush edged out Gore in the closest election ever.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2006, 02:56:13 pm »

Bush won.

Besides, Bush's victory was validated again in 2004.
Logged
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,367
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2006, 05:18:48 pm »

IIRC, the networks called the state for Gore about ten minutes before the polls were going to close, so I doubt it would have made a huge difference.

Because only a huge difference matters when the margin is 537 votes.

More important:  with every argument already archived all across the Internet, why ever argue this again, especially online?
Logged
Special K
GWBFan
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,695


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2006, 05:40:14 pm »

Gore.

I don't like him, but he should've been president.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,420
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2006, 10:06:16 am »

Confusing Butterfly Ballot + Disenfranchisement of Thousands of Blacks that Aren't Felons = Bush wins
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2006, 02:22:32 pm »

Confusing Butterfly Ballot + Disenfranchisement of Thousands of Blacks that Aren't Felons = Bush wins

One might even go so far as to say that Bush 'won power', but that the process was not precisely an 'election' in the internationally accepted sense of a democratic one.  His operatives manipulated the outcome effectively both before and after the 'election' day through, primarily, disenfranchisement as Harry points out.

Of course this is par for the course.  In fact the course itself - the electoral college - is designed to favour right-wing candidates.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,104
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2006, 03:07:37 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's designed the way it is to stop the people from making decisions,because the founding fathers didn't trust the American public. There was no left or right wing back then.

Today, it definitely favors the GOP, but that's only because the current political climate with the GOP taking the South and the Midwest gives them more guaranteed electoral votes than the Democrat strongholds in the Northeast and the West Coast.

Bush won the election, but more people in Florida intended to vote for the Vice President.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 25, 2006, 07:24:33 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's designed the way it is to stop the people from making decisions,because the founding fathers didn't trust the American public. There was no left or right wing back then.

There may have been no left-wing, but the founding fathers were clearly very similar to what we would think of as right-wing extremists today.  Your example of devising a system to 'stop the people from makin decisions' is a perfect example - they were well aware that democracy is highly dangerous to property and privilege.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 25, 2006, 11:38:13 pm »

Gore may have won the popular vote but he was losing ground like wildfire right up until the election. Had they moved the election back a month, Gore would have lost with very sound Kerry numbers. It is sad that the Florida FEc couldn't get it together enough to declare a winner sooner and it is a shame that a former VP couldn't do any better than that...but what happens happens. I personally think Bradley would have been a better choice.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,250
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2006, 11:12:56 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's designed the way it is to stop the people from making decisions,because the founding fathers didn't trust the American public. There was no left or right wing back then.

There may have been no left-wing, but the founding fathers were clearly very similar to what we would think of as right-wing extremists today.  Your example of devising a system to 'stop the people from makin decisions' is a perfect example - they were well aware that democracy is highly dangerous to property and privilege.

Democracy is dangerous to everyone.  That is why it must be tempered by republicanism.  It is the countries that have a well established rule of law that bring the most benefit to their citizens.  Democratic republics are better than autocratic republics, but both are better than unrestrained democracy.  We have succeeded in turning Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies, but they aren't yet republics except on paper, and until that happens we won't have achieved our goal.  Iraq today is in actual fact a democratic anarchy while Afghanistan is a democratic theocracy.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2006, 02:28:01 pm »

Nader.

In all serious though, Gore didn't deserve to win. He was losing ground like wildfire in the polls. Had the election been a week later it would have been as sound a loss for the Dems as 04'. Gore lost the EC, thus he lost the election. The Gore-ons just need to move on.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,288


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2006, 02:30:01 pm »

Nader.

In all serious though, Gore didn't deserve to win. He was losing ground like wildfire in the polls. Had the election been a week later it would have been as sound a loss for the Dems as 04'. Gore lost the EC, thus he lost the election. The Gore-ons just need to move on.

The question isn't who deserved to win. Walter Mondale deserved to beat Ronald Reagan, but of course he didn't.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2006, 04:57:23 pm »

Nader.

In all serious though, Gore didn't deserve to win. He was losing ground like wildfire in the polls. Had the election been a week later it would have been as sound a loss for the Dems as 04'. Gore lost the EC, thus he lost the election. The Gore-ons just need to move on.

The question isn't who deserved to win. Walter Mondale deserved to beat Ronald Reagan, but of course he didn't.

Walter Mondale didn't deserve the nomination as far as I am concerned. What convinced the Democrats that the Vice-President of a ticket that got landslided by Reagan could fair better as the head of the ticket?

Anywho, Bush won Florida. All 100,000 recounts conducted gave Bush the state. Conspiracy therios aside, Bush got the most votes in Florida. It's time the Democrats moved on. I will garuntee that if they lose 2008, they will find some way to crawl back to 2000 for a whine fest.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2006, 11:34:17 pm »

Nader.

In all serious though, Gore didn't deserve to win. He was losing ground like wildfire in the polls. Had the election been a week later it would have been as sound a loss for the Dems as 04'. Gore lost the EC, thus he lost the election. The Gore-ons just need to move on.

The question isn't who deserved to win. Walter Mondale deserved to beat Ronald Reagan, but of course he didn't.

Walter Mondale didn't deserve the nomination as far as I am concerned. What convinced the Democrats that the Vice-President of a ticket that got landslided by Reagan could fair better as the head of the ticket?

Anywho, Bush won Florida. All 100,000 recounts conducted gave Bush the state. Conspiracy therios aside, Bush got the most votes in Florida. It's time the Democrats moved on. I will garuntee that if they lose 2008, they will find some way to crawl back to 2000 for a whine fest.

The official recount favored Bush. Most of the unofficial ones favored Gore. It all depends on what standard you use.

I agree that we should all move on, but the margin was so close, and the number of discrepancies and irregularities so large, that to say with any degree of confidence who actually won the state is delusional. I agree that conspiracy theories about Florida being stolen are wrong, but it's not at all unreasonable to feel, as I did, that Gore was the legitimate winner of the state, but that Bush ended up winning on a technicality.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2006, 08:15:56 pm »

Nader.

In all serious though, Gore didn't deserve to win. He was losing ground like wildfire in the polls. Had the election been a week later it would have been as sound a loss for the Dems as 04'. Gore lost the EC, thus he lost the election. The Gore-ons just need to move on.

The question isn't who deserved to win. Walter Mondale deserved to beat Ronald Reagan, but of course he didn't.

Walter Mondale didn't deserve the nomination as far as I am concerned. What convinced the Democrats that the Vice-President of a ticket that got landslided by Reagan could fair better as the head of the ticket?

Anywho, Bush won Florida. All 100,000 recounts conducted gave Bush the state. Conspiracy therios aside, Bush got the most votes in Florida. It's time the Democrats moved on. I will garuntee that if they lose 2008, they will find some way to crawl back to 2000 for a whine fest.

The official recount favored Bush. Most of the unofficial ones favored Gore. It all depends on what standard you use.

I agree that we should all move on, but the margin was so close, and the number of discrepancies and irregularities so large, that to say with any degree of confidence who actually won the state is delusional. I agree that conspiracy theories about Florida being stolen are wrong, but it's not at all unreasonable to feel, as I did, that Gore was the legitimate winner of the state, but that Bush ended up winning on a technicality.

The truly sad thing is that Gore let it get that close in the first place. Had he campaigned better, he could have carried all of the swing states he lost. HE could have won Florida by 5 points had he campaigned better.

Either way, I trust the official count. Despite what the Gore-ons will tell you, all of the counts he asked for were conducted in a timely manner and in a non-slanted manner. Had Al just shrugged and said 'damn', I would still hold a deal of respect for him. But noooo...he had to be a sore loser.
Logged
ATFFL
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,756
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2006, 09:18:40 am »

The result of the post election counts also varied based on the counter.  If they came in with a political bias, they were more likely to judge questionable ballots for their side.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,938


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2006, 03:23:25 pm »


^^^^^^

Bush won narrowly, but he did win fair and square. 

^^^^^^
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,275
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2006, 08:08:01 pm »


Well I agree that Bush didn't cheat, but I do believe his victory was on a technicality.

It's sort of like saying OJ Simpson is innocent of murder. Legally, obviously he is, but that doesn't really change my opinion of what actually happened.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines