A blast from the past: Who still thinks Gore won?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Historians will say the results of the 2000 election did not reflect the will of the people



There will be a consensus that Bush got onto the Whitehouse on a busted election process.
 
when will we get rid of the electoral college? Gore won the votes, Bush won the presidency. Does that make any sense at all?
 
THe electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do in 2000, which was to keep one state or region from having too much effect on the outcome of the election. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by 100,000 overall. This was mostly due to the landslide victory Gore enjoyed in California, where he won by over a million. Basic math should tell you that the Cali vote was far out of line with how the rest of the country voted. The electoral college corrected that.
 
Clark W. Griswold said:
THe electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do in 2000, which was to keep one state or region from having too much effect on the outcome of the election. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by 100,000 overall. This was mostly due to the landslide victory Gore enjoyed in California, where he won by over a million. Basic math should tell you that the Cali vote was far out of line with how the rest of the country voted. The electoral college corrected that.
Click to expand...

Gore wins California 5.8 mil to 4.5 mil, or 53-41, so his margin of victory is diminished by giving him 54 out of 54 electoral votes. Makes sense to me.
 
I'm not sure what to think of the electoral college. On one hand, it's not fair for Texas Democrats and New York Republicans. But I did read Griswold's post, and it was pretty insightful.
 
More people voted for Gore in this country than voted for Bush. And if you include Nader and Buchanan votes, VASTLY more people voted left that year than voted right. So the bitterness is understandable.

But to answer your question, no he didn't WIN. Is someone saying that he did?
 
Of course I do believe the election process should be improved (I dunno national holiday, driver licenses being used to identify voters, better record keeping, etc.) However, I could never agree with the ridiculous ideas that were brought forward by Gore supporters such as doing the election in Florida over again, having people re-vote b/c they don't know how to read a ballot or didn't take it seriously enough to vote carefully, etc... Election fraud should be prevented. Its funny how issues of election fraud and disenfranchisement became important to the Democratic party after their guy lost. Geez, if it was so important maybe they should have done something about many years ago. How about during the Kennedy vs. Nixon election.
 
I personally support the abolition of the Electoral College. I understand many here do not agree, and that's OK. I think it should be strictly by popular vote, and in that sense yes, I think Gore won. But who cares now? Not me. It's four years too late.
 
the country will never go for abolishing one of the core doctrines in the constitution - not that the constitution is perfect, many just hold it to be, well, holy. I say a proportionate distribution of electoral college votes is the way to modify it.
 
blueyedpoet said:
the country will never go for abolishing one of the core doctrines in the constitution - not that the constitution is perfect, many just hold it to be, well, holy. I say a proportionate distribution of electoral college votes is the way to modify it.
Click to expand...

But to be honest as a brit, you electoral system is a bit of a joke. Not for the electoral college but for the simple fact that you have partisan elected officials at the state and local level in charge of your election.

Put simply, in a close race such as Florida in 2000, you had a republican candidate win by a tiny margin, with the election handled by a partisan republican offical in a state governed by the victors brother. A third world country could manage a fairer system.
 
I agree popshopper, that's why there was so much controversy over the 2000 election and why we all hoped to hell it didn't happen again. I'm relieved that we didn't have another recount controversy on the scale of that one. The Founding Fathers made it tough to amend the constitution for a reason, though. They didn't want some kook to be able to put a law on the books without the people's votes, and that was very wise. If you ask me Prohibition was a bit kooky, and that actually became law! That was the dumbest political act in U.S. history in my opinion. I'm sorry, I just don't approve of Prohibition, it's very silly.
 
Last edited:
popshopper said:
Put simply, in a close race such as Florida in 2000, you had a republican candidate win by a tiny margin, with the election handled by a partisan republican offical in a state governed by the victors brother. A third world country could manage a fairer system.
Click to expand...

Unlike a third world country, we have a billion lawyers who will pounce on any perceived unfairness. Any close election gets scrutiny and allowances for automatic recounts are built into the system.

The idea of having non-partisan officials is mostly illusory. Everyone brings their biases with them. If they violate the law, they pay the price.
 
nbcrusader said:


The idea of having non-partisan officials is mostly illusory. Everyone brings their biases with them. If they violate the law, they pay the price.
Click to expand...

it works here. it works in france. Germany too. We have a civil service which is pretty apolitical.

You have people directly controlling elections in which they are standing. That is a conflict of interest, and something which some of the most dubious african dictators would be proud of.

The idea that lawyers can solve anything is pretty naive. At the end of the day your supreme court is pretty much partisan too.
 
deep said:
Historians will say the results of the 2000 election did not reflect the will of the people

There will be a consensus that Bush got onto the Whitehouse on a busted election process.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
verte76 said:


History will say that it was a very closely contested, and excruciatingly close election. That's all.
Click to expand...

The closeness and legal challenges will become a smaller and smaller asterisk as the years go by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Hello From Alberta, Canada
Replies
4
Views
395
NormB
N
Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
515
mikal
mikal
Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
261
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom