Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
875
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + +
Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 (view source)
Revision as of 00:01, August 19, 2007
, 00:01, August 19, 2007no edit summary
::::Ferret, the point is, much is made of the fact that 500,000 more votes were cast ''against'' Bush than ''for'' Bush; changes to the United States Constitution were proposed, by no less than Hillary Clinton herself, being only one such advocate. In point of fact, William Jefferson Clinton had 16,000,000 ''more'' votes cast against him than for him him in 1992. You yourself added the totally false and errant disinformation that William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1996 with an "absolute majority" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election%2C_1996&diff=261844&oldid=259713].
::::Ferret, the point is, much is made of the fact that 500,000 more votes were cast ''against'' Bush than ''for'' Bush; changes to the United States Constitution were proposed, by no less than Hillary Clinton herself, being only one such advocate. In point of fact, William Jefferson Clinton had 16,000,000 ''more'' votes cast against him than for him him in 1992. You yourself added the totally false and errant disinformation that William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1996 with an "absolute majority" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election%2C_1996&diff=261844&oldid=259713].
:::::OK, the 'absolute majority' mistake was a genuine misunderstanding on my part, you will have to take my word on that. (You'll note I created an article on the subject which was also wrong.) You reverted to "plurality" which is correct, although it's the very term you want to avoid in this entry. In fact, he did get a majority (according to the figures in the article) which is the stronger term and therefore I've changed it to that. (In 1992, he got a plurality but NOT a majority.)
:::::As for this article, PLEASE don't accuse me of anything other than trying to get consistency. I am certainly not trying to push a Gore agenda, and it would be quite improper of me to do so, not being an American (and therefore unaffected by most presidential policies). I understand the 2000 result was controversial and that Gore supporters tried to paint it as illegitimate. I think this entry needs to state the facts and make clear the victory was fair and square to avoid the problem you perceive. Can I suggest the following "Bush did not win a pluraility of the popular vote. However, because of the balances deliberately included in the Electoral College system, he won a majority of the popular vote in sufficient states to secure a majority in the Electoral College and was duly elected President." [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 20:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's anaylze the '''facts''': for every one vote that voted ''against'' GW Bush in 2000 than for him, William Jefferson Clinton (and by virtue of his election, his wife became First Lady), had 30 votes more cast ''against'' him than for him. This is a ratio of 30:1.
::::Let's anaylze the '''facts''': for every one vote that voted ''against'' GW Bush in 2000 than for him, William Jefferson Clinton (and by virtue of his election, his wife became First Lady), had 30 votes more cast ''against'' him than for him. This is a ratio of 30:1.
:::::Is the point you're making here that Bush in 2000 was much closer to winning a majority than Clinton was in 1992? If so, I think it's worth making - in essence you are saying that majorities are much harder to achieve when there is a third candidate, yes? [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 20:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Now, can you blame anyone for being suspicious of the (a) the information you place, (b) the methods of how you do it, and (c) your arguments and reasoning? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:23, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Now, can you blame anyone for being suspicious of the (a) the information you place, (b) the methods of how you do it, and (c) your arguments and reasoning? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:23, 9 August 2007 (EDT)