Posted on 03/09/2004 8:53:31 AM PST by waterman478
I am looking for an article or source that outlines the facts why Bush won in 2000. I'm looking for the arguments to have handy when your typical liberal throws out the "Well Bush stole the election in 2000" comment. Can anyone point me to something? Thanks!
Huh? You ARE aware that the President is elected based on the electoral college, but each state is won based on raw vote count, correct?
If not, now you are.
If so, do you have a problem with that process?
Bush won the electoral vote. Florida's vote was close enough that it triggered an automatic statewide recount. This was done and again, Bush won that state.
The Gore team is the party that tried to steal the election. (If a liberal claims Bush tried to steal the election, you should say "Actually, it was Gore who tried to steal it." Period.) They wanted another recount, but this time in only a few counties that went heavily Gore. They flat out stated that they would "find" more votes for Gore and then he'd win. The Republicans correctly pointed out--and were forced to the courts by the grasping and graceless democrats--that if yet another recount was to be done, they needed to present a reason other than phantom charges of voting "problems", and further, that any recounts would be done statewide.
The Gore team did not want a statewide re-recount, just their few counties, so the fight was on from there. Ultimately a statewide recount was going to be attempted, but then counting methods were brought into dispute.
In addition to all of this, the Gore team, contrary to their braying to "count every vote" endeavored to throw out as many military absentee ballots as they could, since they knew these would heavily favor the Republican candidate, Bush.
The legislature of Florida had laws and rules in place citing dates and counting methods, and the Florida Supreme Court tried to overturn these laws and impose their own rules. Katherine Harris had a duty to follow the law and certified the tally from the mandated recount, as she was required to do, as there was no law or cause showing why the count and recount should not be the final tally.
This is where the USSC was brought in. The first ruling from the USSC was 9-0 that the SCOFLAs could not write their own guidlines, that was the legislature's territory. The SCOFLAs tried to circumvent the law again, which threatened to cause a constitutional crisis by holding Florida hostage and not being able to cast their electoral votes on the date set by Congress. The Florida legislature had an emergency meeting to discuss sending their electors even if the endless "counting" was going on. However the USSC said 7-2 that the SCOFLA decision exceeded their powers. End of story. Bush won.
Recounts by media and such afterwards confirmed that Bush won Florida.
And if you have liberal friends, mention the dem caught with the voting machine in his car. They wouldn't have been manufacturing votes in the targeted counties, would they? Or would they....
No, it is not the same rationale.
Neither candidate attempts to garner the majority of the popular vote, and voters know it. They would run completely different campaigns if that was the goal, so to hold them to that standard is unfair.
How many Bush voters in Texas, for example, did not vote because they knew Bush had it sewn up by miles? How do you figure in states that both candidates write off as already a given for the other guy? There surely are people in those states they'd try to rally to the polls if they were after amassing the most votes country wide.
No, it is not the same.
That is a very good summation. Twice.
5.56mm
Huh?
The national count (popular vote) came down to 0.52% more votes for Albert Gore Junior. That is just over 1/2 of 1%.
That number is well within the margin of error. In the absence of a national recount (of every county) we will never know who "really" won the popular vote. Some states certified their vote totals for the Presidency before all of the absentee ballots came in. Since their states were not in contention, it does not affect the outcome of the election (the electoral votes would still go to the same candidate). Generally a state will accept absentee ballots up to 2 weeks after election day (all must be postmarked on or before election day). The states that certified their total before then probably trimmed some vote totals.
I don't bring up these absentee votes because I "know" they would put Bush over the top in the "popular vote", but the possibility exists (especially since absentee ballots tend to favor Republicans).
Certainly there are voting irregularities that were tolerated in the "popular vote" totals. A number of college students have admitted to voting for Algore at home and in their college town. Other college students admitted to voting in the same town several times (St. Louis?).
Even accepting the "popular vote" total as genuine, it is like tossing a coin to see heads or tails and the coin landing on the vertical side.
Now take that same analogy and that is Florida. The left is so certain that George W. Bush did not win Florida by 500-3000 votes. Why? Because the vote was "close"? Nationally it was close yet the left never disputes those numbers.
Florida is the state where the vote was the closest (although some other states were close enough that they had automatic recounts kick in). Florida is where that coin toss leaned a little more in George W. Bush's favor.
A look at the "Bush County" map shows all of the counties (in red) that President Bush won in the United States.
Albert Gore won in high density areas (perhaps because that is where "knock and drag" can be counted on to turn out the vote). The founders realized that a few populous areas could control the fate of America. We employ the Electoral College to make things "fair".
Every now and then the left cries how we need to do away with the EC. Let's do away with 2 Senators for Rhode Island and Delaware too. Texas and California need more Senators. Oh wait, that would describe how representation is determined in the House of Representatives.
The Senate gives all states equal representation regardless of land size or population.
If there was no Electoral College, EVERY state would have had Floriduh type recount lawsuits going on. Imagine the pandemonium. Imagine the cost.
I'd bet on it.
The statement "Bush won the Electoral College by a landslide" is so utterly uninformed that he must be from DU.
|
|
Gippers Brigade
Since Jan 9, 2004
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||||
I'm with you. He's a Moby troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.