Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 07:56:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election?
#1
Bush
 
#2
Gore
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 86

Author Topic: Who was the rightful winner of the 2000 election?  (Read 14787 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« on: February 26, 2006, 01:34:54 PM »

Source please for that statement.  IIRC, the Miami Herald essentially conducted its own recount and found that while the margin of Bush's victory would have been narrower with a recount, he would have still won.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2006, 12:25:15 PM »

Source please for that statement.  IIRC, the Miami Herald essentially conducted its own recount and found that while the margin of Bush's victory would have been narrower with a recount, he would have still won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Recount

Had there been a statewide recount, under every scenario Gore would have won the election.

From that same article you cite:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, Bush won, unless we in the media imagine that we can determine voter intent in an overvote, which we wouldn't be allowed to do under the law if we were counting the votes for real.

In otherwords, Bush won.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2006, 07:29:55 PM »

They got distracted by the butterflys. Wink
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #3 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
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.