Talk:United States presidential election, 2000

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)
Yes, I do think that some facts are more significant than others. If you think it should be different, then please explain. I think that more people are interested in majorities than pluralities. RSchlafly 11:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
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" [1].
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.)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." 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.
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? 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? Rob Smith 11:23, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
To maybe allay your suspicions of me, here's an interesting story. I was taught politics at high school by a chap who I would rate as the best and most interesting teacher I came across in school or university. His area of research was the US political system and how it contrasts with the UK system, and he managed to pass on a great interest to me in both. He has gone on to become rather well known in British educational circles. He had some close contacts in the political world, including one former UK Prime Minister who would come and talk to us each year. And for those lucky enough to go on the end of year trip to Washington, there was a meeting with a Republican Representative who was a good friend of the teacher but who I admit I didn't know much about at the time. His name was Dick Cheney. Doesn't prove anything I suppose! Ferret 04:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

If we can set aside the quibbling over terms like plurality and absolute majority, the historical non-event of a president in a three-way race not receiving a popular majority, and making assumptions about each other's motives, may we instead note in this article that the Electoral College selected someone who had not received the most popular votes? That's a straightforward fact, and since it has only happened three times in history (including this one), it's rather noteworthy. It's not a pot-shot at Bush; it's a demonstration of how the United States Constitution puts geographic constraints on the popular vote; they did this on purpose. Also, dismissing the impact of Nader and Buchanan because neither won any electoral votes misses the obvious fact that they affected who did win the electoral votes in each state. Hint: nobody received a majority in Florida... or Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, or Wisconsin; Nader or Buchanan's supporters could have swung the election decisively either way if their candidate had dropped out. - JasonAQuest 20:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)

First you argue that a majority is not significant, because it happens all the time in a 3-way race. Then you argue that it is significant, because the 3rd party candidate affects the winner. Which is it?
Kennedy failed to win a plurality of the popular vote in 1960. (He is sometimes credited with a plurality, because he is sometimes credited with some southern votes that were not actually votes for him.) RSchlafly 11:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
You might want to tone down your response a little bit, as it seemed a bit argumentative. It comes across as awkward when your reply is nearly 6 months after his comment. Which also may mean it might be some time before he gets back to you, since the following day was his last edit. --Jareddr 11:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I know his comment was old, but it relates to some current edits, and I wanted to justify the edit that I just made. RSchlafly 12:52, 10 June 2008 (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)