Changes

::::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.)

:::::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.  <s>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.)</s>My mistake again.  The figures in the article were incomplete.  I've updated it accordingly.

:::::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)

:::::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)