3 ms·

It seems like quite a stretch to say the 2000 election was stolen. There were definitely ballot issues, but Gore challenged it and ultimately decided of his own

It seems like quite a stretch to say the 2000 election was stolen. There were definitely ballot issues, but Gore challenged it and ultimately decided of his own accord to concede. He could have continued the challenge and drawn the process out, throwing in throwing in the towel to allow the process to end was his choice, it wasn't stolen.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. Gore lost the initial vote count in Florida. He wanted to recount. That was fine. He lost the recount, but it was closer. Then he wanted specific recounts - to recount the precincts where he thought he would gain the most votes in another recount, and to not recount the ones where Bush would gain votes. Also there were calendar issues - the December date where they have to cast their Electoral College votes was coming up. It went to the Supreme Court. The SC made two rulings. First, in a 7-2 vote, they ruled that Gore couldn't recount just in specific spots - if they were going to recount, they had to recount everywhere. Second, in a 5-4 ruling, they ruled that they couldn't keep recounting - they had to meet the December deadline with what they had. That second ruling is what people are talking about when they say the election was "stolen". Personally, I think the SC was right. Recounting only where you'll gain is cheating - you're trying to win, not trying to have an honest count. And if Florida had missed the deadline, and Gore had won because none of Florida's votes counted toward the Electoral College? That would have been stealing the election. It also would have been a violation of the Voting Rights Act and a bunch of other things.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Thanks for the added detail, that's roughly what I remembered as well but definitely a better timeline. I don't actually remember hearing people describe the election as stolen at the time. I know people weren't happy about it, but either I just lost that memory over time or "stolen" is a newer description of 2000 now that its become so commonplace today. Either way, I have a hard time seeing an election that was recounted and challenge GED all the way to the Supreme Court as stolen. Contentious for sure, but that sounds like the system working as intended rather than theft.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    I was in High school at the time, I definitely remember a feeling that the election was stolen and that Bush was not rightfully elected. I don't remember the general feeling going away until after 2001. There was a large partisan divide at that time.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      The difference between then and now was that Gore put the country before himself and conceded. You can be unhappy with a result, and maybe even see a path towards changing it, but at some point politicians owe it to their country to support its core democratic institutions. Clearly and publicly accepting well-audited voting results should be first requirement for presidential candidates. (Said as someone who has thoughts about the 2000 election, but respects what Gore did as a patriotic choice)
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Interesting, I was a year out from high school and remember it being really contentious. I just don't remember the phrase "stolen" being thrown around, but that would have been very easy for me to not notice at the time or forget since then.
      - themaninthedark 2y ago
        The earliest that I can find using "stolen" is from 2004, it refers to both the 2004 and 2000 elections as stolen: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-voting-stolen-election-2004/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-vot... Bonus points for also casting doubt on electronic voting machines :) A further reference from 2012 has the "stolen" language: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-...
- acdha 2y ago
  The really interesting thing was that Bush likely would have won following Gore’s recount of only undervotes but lost if they’d recounted both under and over votes: https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-elect... My main takeaway is that this was within the margin of error so we shouldn’t go crazy trying to play what-if scenarios and getting distracted from blaming Florida for having a bad system which produced high error rates. Once you’re in the noise like that, you’ve guaranteed that someone will be unhappy.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Your recollection doesn’t agree with Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore. 1. It was the Bush campaign that asked the Supreme Court for a stay. 2. The initial recount was triggered automatically because of the narrow margin. It was not requested by Gore. He did still lose it but by a much smaller margin than before. It turns out that 18 counties in Florida didn’t carry out the recount, although Gore never challenged this. 3. Candidates are allowed to request recounts in individual counties. Gore exercised that right in four traditionally democratic voting counties. Bush had the same right. 4. Later analysis showed that Gore would have lost the counties he requested recounts in but if Florida had properly counted ballots in the first place he would have won. 5. The Supreme Court controversy comes from Florida’s requirement to certify results within 7 days. Several of the counties that Gore requested said they couldn’t complete the recount in that time. The Florida Secretary of State didn’t extend the deadline for certification but did allow counties to continue recounts and amend their results. The Supreme Court stepped in and stayed these recounts, forcing Florida electors to accept the initially certified results and blocking any amended results.
mulmen 2y ago
He didn’t “decide of his own accord to concede”. The US Supreme Court decided for him by ending any further path to count votes in Florida so Gore conceded when be had no other options.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Probably a technicality, but he did still decide to concede. The Supreme Court only ended his specific bid for a recount, they didn't call the election winner or end his campaign.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Definitely a technicality, and interesting only because he chose country over personal ambition. The Supreme Court slammed the door in his face. He could have kept fighting but every available path was even more ugly than what he and the country already endured.
    - thejazzman 2y ago
      Only since 2020 has it become acceptable/normal/typical/strategy to take your battle against democracy itself. At least so blatantly visibly explicitly and shamelessly.
thejazzman 2y ago
When the Supreme Court rules the outcome instead of the voters, and even goes so far as to stress that their actions can't ever be used as precedent in any other matter, it's a uh.. yeah. Idk I think something was stolen from over half the voters.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

It's a bit more complicated than that. Gore lost the initial vote count in Florida. He wanted to recount. That was fine. He lost the recount, but it was closer. Then he wanted specific recounts - to recount the precincts where he thought he would gain the most votes in another recount, and to not recount the ones where Bush would gain votes. Also there were calendar issues - the December date where they have to cast their Electoral College votes was coming up. It went to the Supreme Court. The SC made two rulings. First, in a 7-2 vote, they ruled that Gore couldn't recount just in specific spots - if they were going to recount, they had to recount everywhere. Second, in a 5-4 ruling, they ruled that they couldn't keep recounting - they had to meet the December deadline with what they had. That second ruling is what people are talking about when they say the election was "stolen". Personally, I think the SC was right. Recounting only where you'll gain is cheating - you're trying to win, not trying to have an honest count. And if Florida had missed the deadline, and Gore had won because none of Florida's votes counted toward the Electoral College? That would have been stealing the election. It also would have been a violation of the Voting Rights Act and a bunch of other things.

_heimdall 2y ago
Thanks for the added detail, that's roughly what I remembered as well but definitely a better timeline. I don't actually remember hearing people describe the election as stolen at the time. I know people weren't happy about it, but either I just lost that memory over time or "stolen" is a newer description of 2000 now that its become so commonplace today. Either way, I have a hard time seeing an election that was recounted and challenge GED all the way to the Supreme Court as stolen. Contentious for sure, but that sounds like the system working as intended rather than theft.
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  I was in High school at the time, I definitely remember a feeling that the election was stolen and that Bush was not rightfully elected. I don't remember the general feeling going away until after 2001. There was a large partisan divide at that time.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The difference between then and now was that Gore put the country before himself and conceded. You can be unhappy with a result, and maybe even see a path towards changing it, but at some point politicians owe it to their country to support its core democratic institutions. Clearly and publicly accepting well-audited voting results should be first requirement for presidential candidates. (Said as someone who has thoughts about the 2000 election, but respects what Gore did as a patriotic choice)
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Interesting, I was a year out from high school and remember it being really contentious. I just don't remember the phrase "stolen" being thrown around, but that would have been very easy for me to not notice at the time or forget since then.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      The earliest that I can find using "stolen" is from 2004, it refers to both the 2004 and 2000 elections as stolen: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-voting-stolen-election-2004/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-11-05/electronic-vot... Bonus points for also casting doubt on electronic voting machines :) A further reference from 2012 has the "stolen" language: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-...
acdha 2y ago
The really interesting thing was that Bush likely would have won following Gore’s recount of only undervotes but lost if they’d recounted both under and over votes: https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-elect... My main takeaway is that this was within the margin of error so we shouldn’t go crazy trying to play what-if scenarios and getting distracted from blaming Florida for having a bad system which produced high error rates. Once you’re in the noise like that, you’ve guaranteed that someone will be unhappy.
mulmen 2y ago
Your recollection doesn’t agree with Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore. 1. It was the Bush campaign that asked the Supreme Court for a stay. 2. The initial recount was triggered automatically because of the narrow margin. It was not requested by Gore. He did still lose it but by a much smaller margin than before. It turns out that 18 counties in Florida didn’t carry out the recount, although Gore never challenged this. 3. Candidates are allowed to request recounts in individual counties. Gore exercised that right in four traditionally democratic voting counties. Bush had the same right. 4. Later analysis showed that Gore would have lost the counties he requested recounts in but if Florida had properly counted ballots in the first place he would have won. 5. The Supreme Court controversy comes from Florida’s requirement to certify results within 7 days. Several of the counties that Gore requested said they couldn’t complete the recount in that time. The Florida Secretary of State didn’t extend the deadline for certification but did allow counties to continue recounts and amend their results. The Supreme Court stepped in and stayed these recounts, forcing Florida electors to accept the initially certified results and blocking any amended results.

mulmen 2y ago

He didn’t “decide of his own accord to concede”. The US Supreme Court decided for him by ending any further path to count votes in Florida so Gore conceded when be had no other options.

_heimdall 2y ago
Probably a technicality, but he did still decide to concede. The Supreme Court only ended his specific bid for a recount, they didn't call the election winner or end his campaign.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Definitely a technicality, and interesting only because he chose country over personal ambition. The Supreme Court slammed the door in his face. He could have kept fighting but every available path was even more ugly than what he and the country already endured.
  - thejazzman 2y ago
    Only since 2020 has it become acceptable/normal/typical/strategy to take your battle against democracy itself. At least so blatantly visibly explicitly and shamelessly.

thejazzman 2y ago

When the Supreme Court rules the outcome instead of the voters, and even goes so far as to stress that their actions can't ever be used as precedent in any other matter, it's a uh.. yeah. Idk I think something was stolen from over half the voters.