39 ms·

Come on, we did not. The EC came down to one state. The one state came down to a close vote. It would have been controversial either way. It was a close electio

Come on, we did not. The EC came down to one state. The one state came down to a close vote. It would have been controversial either way. It was a close election, and everything after the point of interpreting that vote result went through the normal process. A coup would be where there's a clear convincing result pointing one way, and then the other thing happens.

smcl 4y ago
> The one state came down to a close vote You stopped telling the story at the moment the GP was referring to as a coup. I'll complete the story: The EC came down to one state. The one state came down to a very close vote. When there is a very close vote a recount should be conducted. A recount began but was halted with help from one candidate's brother and was declared in that candidate's favour.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  I agree, but that was beside the point. The SC ruling was lousy. But there is no evidence that the election was clearly and convincingly won by Gore. The AP recount afterward demonstrated otherwise, anyway (edit: by which I mean the standard of recount requested by Gore's camp: Bush still would have won). It was a lousy expression of democracy and you can even say it was a corrupt SC ruling, but it wasn't a coup.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  The Supreme Court also had a major role here. That was a 5-4 decision where the wife of one of the jurors was actively working for Bush's campaign/administration; said juror refused to recuse himself. Maybe that's the moment "even the appearance of impropriety" left the political phrasebook.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The Supreme Court also had a major role here. That was a 5-4 decision where the wife of one of the jurors was actively working for Bush's campaign/administration “Justices” not “jurors”.
    - MrWiffles 4y ago
      While you are technically correct ("the best kind of correct!"), that distinction does not absolve the individual of their obvious conflict of interest. ...nor does that conflict of interest in and of itself, entirely alone, prove that the decision reached was incorrect, wrong, or an act of corruption or malice.
    - nescioquid 4y ago
      That was mortifying. Thanks for the correction.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  You also left out part of the story. Gore wanted to selectively recount. Recount this county, but not that one. The Supreme Court shot that down 7-2. The SC also ruled, 5-4, that Florida couldn't keep recounting forever - that, in fact, they had run out of time to do so. (Imagine if in 2021, on January 6, states were still recounting and not ready to report results, and you can see the problem.)

smcl 4y ago

> The one state came down to a close vote You stopped telling the story at the moment the GP was referring to as a coup. I'll complete the story: The EC came down to one state. The one state came down to a very close vote. When there is a very close vote a recount should be conducted. A recount began but was halted with help from one candidate's brother and was declared in that candidate's favour.

tunesmith 4y ago
I agree, but that was beside the point. The SC ruling was lousy. But there is no evidence that the election was clearly and convincingly won by Gore. The AP recount afterward demonstrated otherwise, anyway (edit: by which I mean the standard of recount requested by Gore's camp: Bush still would have won). It was a lousy expression of democracy and you can even say it was a corrupt SC ruling, but it wasn't a coup.
nescioquid 4y ago
The Supreme Court also had a major role here. That was a 5-4 decision where the wife of one of the jurors was actively working for Bush's campaign/administration; said juror refused to recuse himself. Maybe that's the moment "even the appearance of impropriety" left the political phrasebook.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The Supreme Court also had a major role here. That was a 5-4 decision where the wife of one of the jurors was actively working for Bush's campaign/administration “Justices” not “jurors”.
  - MrWiffles 4y ago
    While you are technically correct ("the best kind of correct!"), that distinction does not absolve the individual of their obvious conflict of interest. ...nor does that conflict of interest in and of itself, entirely alone, prove that the decision reached was incorrect, wrong, or an act of corruption or malice.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    That was mortifying. Thanks for the correction.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
You also left out part of the story. Gore wanted to selectively recount. Recount this county, but not that one. The Supreme Court shot that down 7-2. The SC also ruled, 5-4, that Florida couldn't keep recounting forever - that, in fact, they had run out of time to do so. (Imagine if in 2021, on January 6, states were still recounting and not ready to report results, and you can see the problem.)