4 ms·

Tell that to the 2000 presidential election...

by joesmo 11y ago

nickff 11y ago
Can everyone please stop bringing this up? The 2000 Presidential Election was the inevitable consequence of the electoral system; there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result. How can you say that when the source you cite specifically points to a study that shows Gore winning by any criteria in a statewide recount in Florida; e.g., that its quite likely that not only did Gore have more votes cast for him than Bush, but also more votes in States that combined had a majority of electoral votes.
  - nickff 11y ago
    If you read the heading on the table you refer to, you would have seen that its title is "Candidate outcomes based on potential non-absentee recounts in Florida presidential election 2000". Absentee ballots do matter, and the court was never even asked to do a statewide recount (to the best of my knowledge). In addition to that, Gore would not have won on an full recount based on the conventional standards for a vote (two corners of the chad punched), as is made clear later in the article, by papers like the New York Times.
- joesmo 11y ago
  Whether Gore or Bush actually won the election is inconsequential at this point, save for the lasting damage. Almost 100% of the American people want fair elections which means that all votes are counted. If the American people can't even get fair elections, something almost 100% of them undoubtedly want, then they certainly can't get anything else passed. So no, we won't stop bringing this up as it's a very real issue that we're still suffering the consequences of and a great counterexample to the post I replied to.
  - nickff 11y ago
    All votes were counted. What Gore wanted was a recount of certain areas, but without uniform standards, it clearly viotlated Equal Protections, as well as not being possible to complete before the deadline. To be clear, that portion of the Supreme Court opinion was unanimous; the remedy was where the split was.
    - joesmo 11y ago
      Counted, just incorrectly. Fine for US elections.
mikeash 11y ago
The difference in the popular vote in the 2000 election was about 500,000, out of over 100 million votes cast, or about 0.5%. Did you see the part where I said, "The screwed-upness does add some amount of bias, so if it was, say, 51% against and 49% in favor, it might well keep going"? Or did you not even bother to read my comment, and just see an opportunity for a cheap shot?

Tell that to the 2000 presidential election...

by joesmo 11y ago

Tell that to the 2000 presidential election...

Can everyone please stop bringing this up? The 2000 Presidential Election was the inevitable consequence of the electoral system; there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-...

dragonwriter 11y ago
> there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result. How can you say that when the source you cite specifically points to a study that shows Gore winning by any criteria in a statewide recount in Florida; e.g., that its quite likely that not only did Gore have more votes cast for him than Bush, but also more votes in States that combined had a majority of electoral votes.
- nickff 11y ago
  If you read the heading on the table you refer to, you would have seen that its title is "Candidate outcomes based on potential non-absentee recounts in Florida presidential election 2000". Absentee ballots do matter, and the court was never even asked to do a statewide recount (to the best of my knowledge). In addition to that, Gore would not have won on an full recount based on the conventional standards for a vote (two corners of the chad punched), as is made clear later in the article, by papers like the New York Times.
joesmo 11y ago
Whether Gore or Bush actually won the election is inconsequential at this point, save for the lasting damage. Almost 100% of the American people want fair elections which means that all votes are counted. If the American people can't even get fair elections, something almost 100% of them undoubtedly want, then they certainly can't get anything else passed. So no, we won't stop bringing this up as it's a very real issue that we're still suffering the consequences of and a great counterexample to the post I replied to.
- nickff 11y ago
  All votes were counted. What Gore wanted was a recount of certain areas, but without uniform standards, it clearly viotlated Equal Protections, as well as not being possible to complete before the deadline. To be clear, that portion of the Supreme Court opinion was unanimous; the remedy was where the split was.
  - joesmo 11y ago
    Counted, just incorrectly. Fine for US elections.

mikeash 11y ago

The difference in the popular vote in the 2000 election was about 500,000, out of over 100 million votes cast, or about 0.5%. Did you see the part where I said, "The screwed-upness does add some amount of bias, so if it was, say, 51% against and 49% in favor, it might well keep going"? Or did you not even bother to read my comment, and just see an opportunity for a cheap shot?