Talk:United States presidential election, 2000

You've been reverted on that same information before Walter. Your concluding sentence alone calls for a revert:

The United States Supreme Court prevented all votes from being recounted, thus insuring Bush's victory in Florida.

That is completely false. The Supreme Court was never asked to consider all votes being recounted as Al Gore chose a different path. The other information you included was also considered controversial at the time it was reported. Others looked at the same ballots and came to different conclusions. There were far more issues including disqualifying military votes, people voting who are not registered (common in Democratic precincts), over votes, the networks calling the state for Gore when the state was still voting, and possible confusion over ballot make up. In the end it comes down to the same thing, it's speculation and isn't part of the story of the steps that Gore took or the decisions that were made in regard to the election. I hope this helps. Learn together 02:27, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought that this sounded fishy. Why has this article been blocked. -Additioner 14:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It's blocked because Walter keeps putting back in the same erroneous information, ignoring the talk section. If you talk to Bohdan I'm sure he'll open it for you for constructive inputs.

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. Ferret 06:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)