4 ms·
The situation is different. Objections in 2000 (in particular) were not about the overall result of the election, but complaints about long lines and voting acc
by mathstuf 6y ago
The situation is different. Objections in 2000 (in particular) were not about the overall result of the election, but complaints about long lines and voting access not being good enough and shining a light on changing things in order to get more voting accessibility. 2020 was about tossing out legitimate votes results in states that people didn't like the overall results of. Note that none of the re-elected candidates in the states in 2020 were saying their election was in any way invalid despite how much shade they were throwing on the entire system.
- ttt0 6y agoAnd this situation is about complaints about poll observers not having a proper access to observe the voting process. And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election.
- tzs 6y ago> And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election How so?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> And ultimately, the objections in 2000 changed the overall result of the election. There weren’t any objections even technically filed. There were attempts to offer objections that didn’t meet the legal standard, which were ruled out of order. If you mean the recount and associated lawsuits, then, no, that didn’t either. Bush won both before and after that. Now, if you slice apart some subset of the recount/lawsuit process apart from others, you can say that, but that’s a rather artificial definition, and, anyway, there is a difference between lawsuits over who should be certified in a state and throwing out a state’s electoral votes in Congress.