1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + − I changed the false statement in the 1992 article that the winner had failed to win the [[plurality]] of the vote. This did happen in 2000 however, but it isn't mentioned here. It mentions the more common occurrence of not receiving the majority (although [[absolute majority]] would be less ambiguous). This was a notable aspect of the 2000 election, so worth mentioning I think? I'd make the change, but the article has been locked due to earlier shenanigans. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 06:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)+
Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 (view source)
Revision as of 16:05, August 7, 2007
, 16:05, August 7, 2007→Plurality of popular vote: Why is it so notable?
==Plurality of popular vote==
==Plurality of popular vote==
I changed the false statement in the 1992 article that the winner had failed to win the [[plurality]] of the vote. This did happen in 2000 however, but it isn't mentioned here. It mentions the more common occurrence of not receiving the majority (although [[absolute majority]] would be less ambiguous). This was a notable aspect of the 2000 election, so worth mentioning I think? I'd make the change, but the article has been locked due to earlier shenanigans. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 06:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
: Why is it so notable? It sounds like just an attempt to discredit Bush's win. The vote totals are given. The percentages are given. The majority is more significant than the plurality of the popular vote. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:05, 7 August 2007 (EDT)