Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
875
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + +
Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 (view source)
Revision as of 21:16, August 7, 2007
, 21:16, August 7, 2007→Plurality of popular vote
: 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)
: 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)
:: Eh? It's notable because it's unusual! It was deemed notable enough to say it on the 1992 page, when it didn't even happen. You're being paranoid. Either we include (correct) comments about the majority in all the recent elections or don't make them at all. I'm easy either way. But don't let's pick and choose - it's highly unscholarly. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:: It is interesting to note that prior to the election, earlier projections pointed towards a possible Al Gore electoral win with George Bush winning the popular vote. When this was brought up to the Gore camp as to whether this would be right, the response was that of course it would be; it was the electoral college that mattered. It was only after Bush's win that the discrediting concept on needing to win the popular vote kicked in. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:: It is interesting to note that prior to the election, earlier projections pointed towards a possible Al Gore electoral win with George Bush winning the popular vote. When this was brought up to the Gore camp as to whether this would be right, the response was that of course it would be; it was the electoral college that mattered. It was only after Bush's win that the discrediting concept on needing to win the popular vote kicked in. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Noting it as a fact, in the same way that Clinton's lack of absolute majority in 1992 has now (belatedly) been mentioned is NOT meant to discredit him. I just thought it would be nice to be consistent. I have studied US politics purely from the standpoint of how the system works, and the way the 2000 results panned out is of interest. It's notable. If we really are this paranoid, then would the preference be to delete similar comments on other election pages? As I said, I'm easy. If having less rather than more information is the preference I can live with that. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)