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)

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. 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. Ferret 17:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Eh eh? The winner in 2000 had 500,000 votes cast aganist him than for him; the winner in 1992 had 16,000,000 more votes cast against him than for him. This fact perhaps needs to be pointed out. Rob Smith 18:12, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree. And I know it IS there because I made sure myself. Oh... until RSchlafly took it out after I suggested we put the corresponding info into the 2000 article. I seems I have come up against a brick wall. Ferret 18:50, 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. 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. Ferret 17:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Now you sound paranoid. You are not proposing to add info -- the percentages are already there. I went to the 1992 page, and added the percentages, so now that page is more informative as well. RSchlafly 18:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Let's delete the comment that Bush won. That's not adding info -- the electoral college votes are already there. Ferret 06:00, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, can we get rid of the comment about GWB not getting an absolute majority in 2000 please? Ferret 08:26, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Why? The article also says that has happened many times before. Do you also want to remove that? Why? It seems like useful info to me. RSchlafly 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

So, let me get this right. Saying something happened, that happens quite often, is useful. Saying something happened, that happens very rarely, is discrediting Bush? You rock pal! THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TRUSTWORTHY ENCYCLOPEDIA!!! Ferret 05:51, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

I think what desparetly needs to be added to this article is, the designer of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, Florida, Theresa LaPore, also served as a Democratic party election judge. The mainstream media, rather than cite this incompetence and conflict of interest chose to slander and impugn the reputations of GW Bush, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris in a manufactured news story where the final result was never in doubt. Rob Smith 14:33, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

If you want to add discussion of the recount dispute, I suggest Bush v. Gore. RSchlafly 14:58, 8 August 2007 (EDT)