The 2000 US Election

Paully D

I've just been watching Fahrenheit 9/11 from Michael Moore and whilst it's obviously not impartial, it suggests that Bush cheated to win the 2000 election.

I have to admit I had very little interest in politics back then and it's too far back for me to recall, so I'm just wondering what the reaction was like at the time and what your opinion was/is on the whole situation?

Also, could anyone recommend any books, articles etc on the subject that are worth reading?

Thanks.

Manach

Offhand, I remember reading "Breaking the Deadlock" by Richard Posner. He is a noted US judge, and looked at the issue from a legal point of view. His attitude was both sides seem to have weaknesses/strengths but that there was nothing that underhanded about the victory.

WhatNowForUs?

That was the hanging chad election was it not.

InTheTrees

Paully D wrote: »

I've just been watching Fahrenheit 9/11 from Michael Moore and whilst it's obviously not impartial, it suggests that Bush cheated to win the 2000 election.

I have to admit I had very little interest in politics back then and it's too far back for me to recall, so I'm just wondering what the reaction was like at the time and what your opinion was/is on the whole situation?

Also, could anyone recommend any books, articles etc on the subject that are worth reading?

Thanks.

Bush did steal it. The recounts were stopped by a right wing Supreme Court.

Absolutely shocking. I remember it very well.

InTheTrees

Paully D wrote: »

I have to admit I had very little interest in politics back then and it's too far back for me to recall, so I'm just wondering what the reaction was like at the time and what your opinion was/is on the whole situation?

It was a strange time.

Democrats were agitating for a recount. While Republicans were doing everything in their legal power to stop it.

So it felt like Democrats had actually won but Republicans were just looking for loopholes to stop the whole thing. And they found them and handed bush the presidency.

asherbassad

Paully D wrote: »

I've just been watching Fahrenheit 9/11 from Michael Moore and whilst it's obviously not impartial, it suggests that Bush cheated to win the 2000 election.

I have to admit I had very little interest in politics back then and it's too far back for me to recall, so I'm just wondering what the reaction was like at the time and what your opinion was/is on the whole situation?

Also, could anyone recommend any books, articles etc on the subject that are worth reading?

Thanks.

You should start with "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.

Amerika

Didn’t later comprehensive studies (which took 6 months and $10,000,000 to recount every single ballot in Florida – including over-votes, under-votes, hanging chads, "voter intent," etc ) done by various outlets including The New York Times, Associated Press, CNN, and the Washington Post conclude that Bush did indeed win?

InTheTrees

The voting in Florida was a shambles even before the absolute mess of the recounts.

There were issues with the Diebold Electronic voting machines giving unverifiable and unusual results in certain areas (Pat Buchanan, the xenophobe, winning among jewish retirees.)

This was also right after the debacle and embarrassment of the republican attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, so the political atmosphere was pretty toxic anyway.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Didn’t later comprehensive studies (which took 6 months and $10,000,000 to recount every single ballot in Florida – including over-votes, under-votes, hanging chads, "voter intent," etc ) done by various outlets including The New York Times, Associated Press, CNN, and the Washington Post conclude that Bush did indeed win?

The Supreme Court decided that the recounts couldnt be finished before the result had to be certified so they stopped them. It was borderline corrupt.

And he spent eight years in the white house, so I suppose you could call that "winning" right? He certainly didn't "lose".

I dunno about the image of the USA though.

InTheTrees

And Al gore won the popular vote.

In other words he got more individual citizens votes for President. But there's this crazy "electoral college" system that decides the presidency.

You would think that fact would have had some weight with the Supreme Court but no.

:mad:

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Didn’t later comprehensive studies (which took 6 months and $10,000,000 to recount every single ballot in Florida – including over-votes, under-votes, hanging chads, "voter intent," etc ) done by various outlets including The New York Times, Associated Press, CNN, and the Washington Post conclude that Bush did indeed win?

Eh, No. Not only that but Republican thugs barged into counting stations in Florida and ordered counting to be halted under threat of violence. The 2004 election wasn't much better with the independent observers from Vienna leaving and publicly stating that the whole thing was the biggest sham they'd ever witnessed in an OECD nation.
Thousands of people in Florida were disenfranchised. Any person who had so much as the same surname as a felon was stripped of their vote.

InTheTrees

asherbassad wrote: »

Eh, No. Not only that but Republican thugs barged into counting stations in Florida and ordered counting to be halted under threat of violence.

The republicans were bussing in "activists" from the north to mob the counting centers.

Also remember Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida at the time.

I think the corruption of that time has been the reason Jeb (by all accounts a far more capable guy than his drunken brother) hasnt never run for president.

There's some info out there that would scupper his chances if he were to run i'll bet.

Manic Moran

InTheTrees wrote: »

And Al gore won the popular vote.

In other words he got more individual citizens votes for President. But there's this crazy "electoral college" system that decides the presidency.

You would think that fact would have had some weight with the Supreme Court but no.

:mad:

Erm. Why should that have any weight at all with the Supreme Court?

Is there any legislation or common law which states that the Supreme Court needs to pay any attention to the popular vote? The electoral system in place doesn't care about the popular vote, deliberately so.

It doesn't matter if 99.99% of people disagree with something. If it's legal, it's legal. They can change the law.

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

Erm. Why should that have any weight at all with the Supreme Court?

Because they had a choice when they stopped the counting. When the case was argued in front of them they could have gone either way. And they will take public opinion into account in some instances.

You can read the opinions of the opposing supreme court justices to see that there was certainly legitimate legal opinion. Nobody says they were "wrong", they were just out voted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

asherbassad

InTheTrees wrote: »

The republicans were bussing in "activists" from the north to mob the counting centers.

Also remember Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida at the time.

I think the corruption of that time has been the reason Jeb (by all accounts a far more capable guy than his drunken brother) hasnt never run for president.

There's some info out there that would scupper his chances if he were to run i'll bet.

Is it Neil or Marv Bush, the one who basically lives his days in a cocaine fueled stupor in Thai brothels?

InTheTrees

asherbassad wrote: »

Is it Neil or Marv Bush, the one who basically lives his days in a cocaine fueled stupor in Thai brothels?

ha ha ha...

But beware.

I remember watching the Republican primaries before the 2000 election when Bush beat Mccain.

When Bush won we all though it was great. That the republicans had shot themselves in the foot. I mean surely bush was completely unelectable? He could barely string one coherent sentence together and didn't seem to have even a basic understanding of the issues. He had a terrible reputation as guv of Texas too.

Plus he was a drunk.

But his father had been head of the CIA.

kryogen

So I guess you liked the film "Recount" then In The Trees, plenty of that film in your posts?

The way that election played out was very ugly, even by US presidential election standards

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

And Al gore won the popular vote.

In other words he got more individual citizens votes for President. But there's this crazy "electoral college" system that decides the presidency.

You would think that fact would have had some weight with the Supreme Court but no.

:mad:

The Electoral College and many parts of the Constitution for that matter are set up deliberately so that the "Popular Vote" does not dominate national politics. Its a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Its on purpose.

You would have to look back through US History to really understand I guess. The short version is, the Electoral College is seen as a good thing.

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

The Electoral College and many parts of the Constitution for that matter are set up deliberately so that the "Popular Vote" does not dominate national politics. Its a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Its on purpose.

You would have to look back through US History to really understand I guess. The short version is, the Electoral College is seen as a good thing.

Yup, I understand the constitutional function of the electoral college and that it was created "on purpose".

But it was created at a time when the popular vote could have taken a couple of months to find its way from the ballot box out in backwoods somewhere all the way to Washington DC.

There's no need for it anymore. But its an absolutely monumental task to change anything in the Constitution so its not likely to change.

InTheTrees

kryogen wrote: »

So I guess you liked the film "Recount" then In The Trees, plenty of that film in your posts?

The way that election played out was very ugly, even by US presidential election standards

I never saw it. But its in my Netflix queue.

The wounds are still raw. And when you look back at the bush "presidency" you can see why.

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

But it was created at a time when the popular vote could have taken a couple of months to find its way from the ballot box out in backwoods somewhere all the way to Washington DC.

It was also created at a time when states like Virginia and South Carolina wanted to leverage their political weight versus small states. Today it still services to keep the vote representative of the union as a whole, not just major cities.