Okay, what exactly happened at the end of the 2000 presidential election?

This thread is about the whole Florida debacle that concluded the most contentious national election in recent history, in fall 2000, between Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush.

Now, I've heard all kinds of stories flying back and forth, and it seems like there are two truths: Bush won (espoused by Bush supporters) and Bush lost (espoused by Gore supporters and just about anyone anti-Bush).

Can someone explain WHAT exactly happened from Election Day to Inauguration Day? Why were the results so contentious, why were recounts appearing to benefit Gore, and why were they stopped, etc?

By the way, this is not a place to bash Bush or bash Gore. This is a thread for getting the truth out - from all sides of the political spectrum.

 

I'll give you what I remember but i'm sure if you search on CNN you can get a basic view of what happened.

Election night Gore was the projected winner of Florida by the polling service. They forgot though that the polls in western Florida that was in Central time hadn't closed yet and their polling samples weren't accurate. When the final votes were in it was too close to call to project a winner of the electoral votes so no national winner could be announced until the situation was resolved. Other states were close but didn't have the probs FL seemed to.
Since it was so close both sides tried to do what they could to gain votes. George W knew that most military votes would go his way so they definitely wanted some absent-tee ballots counted that weren't in the initial count. Since the vote was so close, it automatically triggered a recount of the votes. Through all the recounts Bush maintained a slight lead. Course there was the whole issue of the butterfly ballots where some people who thought they voted for Gore actually voted for Buchanan so there was some effort to get a revote in the counties where Buchanan had a large % of the votes. THere was also the hanging, dimpled chads issue where Gore wanted those votes counted. I guess he thought people who didn't know how to vote would vote for him. There was a court case in the FL supreme court to decide whether an incomplete vote (chads) should be counted. They said they should so the votes were to be scrutinized again using standards set by the counties canvassing boards. Bush then appealed to the US Supreme Court and they basically said the FL Supreme Court was incorrect in their ruling and made them stick to the law and the guidelines set forth before the election. This effectively ended the recounts and the certified count was the final one to be used.
Even after Bush was sworn in, the democrats supporters went through and used very loose standards to count the votes. Every recount clearly showed Bush winning by a small margin. Course this still lead to Bush winning the national electoral vote but losing the popular vote.

Thats my summary. Seems like only yesterday.

EDIT: I recommend seeing the South Park episode with Rosie O'Donnell and Trapper Keeper.

 

I watched an informative video on the subject recently, and you might check Amazon.com or a local library for similar videos and information.

I learned quite a bit just with the video.

 

I like reading Stupid White Men *AND* some more conservative opinions on what happened. It gives you perspective; Moore's research is pretty good but you know he's as biased as all hell; and you get to counter that with conservative op eds. Nice little middle ground, ya know?

E_S

 

Funny that the Supreme Court that gave Bush the presidency is the same one that Bush and other conservatives are bashing for "judicial activism" in cases like Lawrence & Garner v. Texas.

 

LIke i said above, even if the Supreme Court would've allowed the recounts to continue, Bush still would've won so I don't see how the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.

 

Here's an abbreviated chronology taken from a couple of different sources:

November 8-9
Early morning decision too close to call in Florida - automatically triggers recount

November 10
First recount shows George Bush ahead by 327 without counting absentee ballots. Gore requests hand recounts in 4 Florida counties. Bush goes to federal court to prevent hand recount

November 12 - suit filed to bar absentee ballots which will likely benefit Republicans

November 13
Federal court refuses to stop recount

November 14
District Court upholds the certification deadline but states recounts can continue and may be included. State Secretary of State Harrison certifies results with a 300 Bush lead

November 15
Harrison refuses to accept additional votes based on hand recounts

November 16
Florida Supreme Courts says hand recount can continue, but lower court must decide if they have to be included in certification

November 17
Lower court rules Harris can certify results, but Florida Supreme Court stays that decision

November 18
Absentee ballots give Bush 900 vote lead

November 21
Florida Supreme Court rules gives Nov. 26 deadline for certification - allowing recounts to continue.

November 22
Bush appeals to US Supreme Court to stop recount

November 26
Harris certifies Bush victory at 537 votes- without recount of 2 counties

November 27
Gore contests certification result

December 4
US Supreme Court orders clarification of earlier Florida Supreme Court decision

December 5
Lower Florida court rules against Gore

December 6
Gore appeals to Florida Supreme Court

December 8
Florida Supreme Court orders hand recount in all of state where no votes were recorded

December 9
US Supreme Court halts counting

December 12
Supreme Court ends all recounting

Dec 13
Gore concedes

 

Bush lost the popular vote. That's common knowledge. The judges were appointed by Bush Sr, and planning to retire, and they wanted to be replaced by conservatives.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/122200/gen_1222007544.shtml

Many voters in Florida were sent away from the polls because their names were on a list of convicted felons--even though none of them were convicted. This list was obtained by Katherine Harris, who worked for Governor Jeb Bush. Coincidence?

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

Also, many votes submitted for Bush were absentee ballots postmarked AFTER election day, and therefore not valid.

 

Well i admit there were probs on both sides in Florida but I still don't see how the Supreme Court gave Bush the election since all the recounts done by the demos showed Bush winning. If the US Supreme court would've allowed the recounts to continue, Bush still would've won.

 

Many voters in Florida were sent away from the polls because their names were on a list of convicted felons--even though none of them were convicted. This list was obtained by Katherine Harris, who worked for Governor Jeb Bush. Coincidence?

That may be true, but that Article doesn't say so.

Do you have one that does?

 

The singular critical event that occurred was when the Florida Supreme Court directed the recount to proceed using a method that was violating Federal law, disenfranchising large numbers of voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this, and didn't "rule" anything on "Bush vs. Gore" except to state that the recount was in violation of law, and that the Florida Supreme Court needs to find a course of action which would not violate Federal law.

Florida election law, however, has a December 12th deadline to obtain safe harbor for its election results. As this was the same day that the Supreme Court ruled, there was no more time to continue the recount under a fair method that would not disenfranchise Florida voters. Because of that, the official certification at that time became the final result, without any flawed recount results that were in violation of Federal law.

As the final result had Bush winning Florida's election, it means he won Florida's election. And as these electoral votes gave Bush the amount of electoral votes to win the entire Presidential election, Bush won the entire Presidential election.

The U.S. Supreme Court's only action in the case was its recognition that Florida's Supreme Court erred in fabricating a recount procedure that was in violation of law. It was essentially, "Sorry, try again."

But, as there was no time to "try again," given that Presidential election timetables are very clearly fixed to certain key dates, there could not be the kind of recount Gore, et. al. were seeking through the courts.

 

Bush lost the popular vote. That's common knowledge. The judges were appointed by Bush Sr, and planning to retire, and they wanted to be replaced by conservatives.

The whole two justices that GHWB nominated (Souter and Thomas)? Including the one that voted against GWB in Bush vs. Gore (Justice Souter)?

 

Florida election law, however, has a December 12th deadline to obtain safe harbor for its election results. As this was the same day that the Supreme Court ruled, there was no more time to continue the recount under a fair method that would not disenfranchise Florida voters. Because of that, the official certification at that time became the final result, without any flawed recount results that were in violation of Federal law.

The date you cite is not a an asbolute deadline. The Supreme Court made numerous citations of things that Florida law doesn't actually state, and the court even admitted that its own decision could not be used as a precedent in other election disputes.

 

http://www.censurethefive.org/

Also, the site I posted above begins with this:
Dec. 4, 2000 | If Vice President Al Gore is wondering where his Florida votes went, rather than sift through a pile of chad, he might want to look at a "scrub list" of 173,000 names targeted to be knocked off the Florida voter registry by a division of the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. A close examination suggests thousands of voters may have lost their right to vote based on a flaw-ridden list that included purported "felons" provided by a private firm with tight Republican ties.

It's in bold in case you missed it. Katherine Harris works for Jeb Bush, and Sec. of state is a governor-appointed position. The erroneous felon list came from Texas.

 

Obi-Ewan...
"The date you cite is not a an asbolute deadline."

You're incorrect. Yes, it is an absolute deadline, one contained within Federal election law for resolution of any controversary, if one wishes to uphold the intent of Florida election law in wishing to obtain safe harbor for its electors. This intent is what the U.S. Supreme Court recognized and formed as the basis of their opinion that: "That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court?s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards."

 

Obi-Ewan maybe you forgot to read the rest of the article.

Early in the year, the company, ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors.

...

Florida officials moved to put those falsely accused by Texas back on voter rolls before the election.

None of those falsely labelled on that list lost their voting rights.

In the 10 counties contacted by Salon, use of the central voter file seemed to vary wildly. Some found the list too unreliable and didn't use it at all. But most counties appear to have used the file as a resource to purge names from their voter rolls, with some counties making little -- or no -- effort at all to alert the "purged" voters. Counties that did their best to vet the file discovered a high level of errors, with as many as 15 percent of names incorrectly identified as felons.

No number of counties given, this is remarkably shoddy work that cna only be considered an attempt to mislead the reader. It goes on to use the 15% "faulty" figure(a figure made up not only of people who sucessfully appealed the labeling as felons, but names which were not a close match to any in the county) from one country and projects it state wide to come up with a figure of 8000 wrongly disenfrachised.

The only problem is, that it's already told us most counties vetted the list and some didn't use it at all.

Cearly then the 8000 number is completely overblown and the article makes no effort to provide any factual evidence for a real figure.

And deep down in the srticle there's this gem He defends the company's overall performance, however, dismissing the errors in 8,000 names as "a minor glitch -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the electorate" (though the total equals 15 times Gov. George W. Bush's claimed lead over Gore).

Implying the error would have given the eleciton to gore, ignoring the fact the error was caught and fixed before the election by thier own admission.

So if you want to provide an article with some actual proof, go ahead.

Then you can explain how the Republicans a year in advance decided to pick a couple hundred democrats to strike from the ballot because the election was going to be so close.

 

Well, if this article is to be believed, it wouldn't have mattered:
HERE

After the election,Some news organizations, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, set out to conduct their own re-count of the Florida votes for historical interest.

If Gore?s request for a re-count in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties had been successful, Bush still would have won the majority of the votes.

If a full statewide re-count of the undervotes had been done, as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court but halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would also have received the most votes.

So my questions,

1) Why did Gore only focus the recall in the 4 counties that were "traditionally democratic," instead of treating the entire state equally?

2)If they didn't go back and ask each voter personally, how could those election committees determine intent by simply looking at a ballot?

 

It's ludicrous to say that Bush stole the election. It was one of those unlucky moments of discovering the flaws in a complex system that inevitably arise at the extreme margins of possible outcomes. The fact that most people accepted the authority of the judiciary branch to step in and decide the issue made me feel, not for the first or last time, a sense of relief at living in a republic that places so much emphasis on its division of authority among various branches of govenment. So, ultimately, it didn't matter much whom the Supreme Court decided to make president - it was just a demonstration of the strength of the system even at its most flawed.

 

MA -

I recommend seeing the South Park episode with Rosie O'Donnell and Trapper Keeper.

"Just because you are on TV doesn't mean you know crap about the government!"

Mr. Garrison

That was an awesome episode! That show is hilarious.

 

I do not like GWB and think he is a terrible president. I will be supporting the dems in '04. But I think it is disingenuous, inappropriate and irresponsible to state that the SC stole the election for GWB. No recount during the dispute or subsequent to it have found Gore to win. I disagreed with the SC's decision, but it did not steal the election. It just halted the recounts, of which, none have found Gore to have won.

 

Florida was a mess with the amount of back and forth lawsuits. The best thing would have been some kind of "special circumstance" election in Florida that was in full accord of Florida Election Law.

 

If Gore?s request for a re-count in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties had been successful, Bush still would have won the majority of the votes.

If a full statewide re-count of the undervotes had been done, as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court but halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush would also have received the most votes.

Actually, I thought one newspaper's recount tallies showed that in one instance - the one Bush's team was advocating - Gore could have won by a small number of votes. Every other method of recounting came out with Bush on top.

 

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html]This article is very interesting

Here is the complete text:

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida?s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.

Gore won even if one doesn?t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed ?butterfly ballots,? or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there?s no adjustment for George W. Bush?s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida?s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16.]

The Spin

Yet, possibly for reasons of ?patriotism? in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as ?Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush? [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001].

Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, ?George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,? in which Kurtz ridiculed as ?conspiracy theorists? those who thought Gore had won.

?The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,? Kurtz wrote. ?That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.?

Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. ?Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century ? and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?? he wrote.

In other words, the elite media?s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it." Only "Gore partisans" ? as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies ? would insist on looking at the fine print.

The Actual Findings

While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it?s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

?Full Review Favors Gore,? the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots ? punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore?s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines

 

You're incorrect. Yes, it is an absolute deadline, one contained within Federal election law for resolution of any controversary, if one wishes to uphold the intent of Florida election law in wishing to obtain safe harbor for its electors.

No, it's NOT an absolute deadline, because there are rules in place for what a county does if they are going to miss it. I don't mean to quibble over semantics, but the fact that FL law outlines procedures for missing the deadline implies that they expect it to be missed on occasion.

Well i admit there were probs on both sides in Florida but I still don't see how the Supreme Court gave Bush the election since all the recounts done by the demos showed Bush winning. If the US Supreme court would've allowed the recounts to continue, Bush still would've won.

I'm not so sure. Check out Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won and Gore's Victory. Actually, this is the one Enforcer posted. There used to be some better articles on this, but the links no longer work, so these are the best I have right now.

From the latter article: "Full Review Favors Gore,? the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots ? punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

1) Why did Gore only focus the recall in the 4 counties that were "traditionally democratic," instead of treating the entire state equally?

Probably politics - going for what he thought he could win. However, the argument his camp provided was that there wasn't time for a statewide recount, what with Bush filing individual suits in every county.

2)If they didn't go back and ask each voter personally, how could those election committees determine intent by simply looking at a ballot?

Well, the state of Texas has very detailed code on how to determine voter intent despite hanging chads and all that jazz. Surely if it was good enough for Governor Bush, it should have been satisfactory as a standard for presidential candidate Bush. But, of course, politics as usual would prevent such fairness.

The main thing this election should have revealed to us is that vote counting machines - and some vote casting machines - are innaccurate enough to throw off the results of a close election. This has been known for a long time, yet nothing's been done. It's also worth mentioning that the way a vote counting machine is tested by the companies that make them is in comparison with a hand count. The industry standard IS the handcount, with all its flaws.

It's ludicrous to say that Bush stole the election.

Well, you know...there's credible evidence that JFK stole his win from Nixon in '60, we know Nixon messed with '72. Elections get stolen. The first thing about this one that strikes a layman is that it was GWB's brother's state where the election got decided. The second thing to strike one who has studied the law a bit more is that Rhenquist and Scalia completely reversed their usual stances to find in favor of Bush, AND even included a sentence in the per curiam stating that this decision cannot be used as precedent! Tha

 

Well being a God-fearing individual, you'll have to hear my view of this (from a God-fearing standpoint.)

I believe that whatever happens (even in government) God has a plan and purpose for it. I believe it was God's will that Bush be elected.

Interesting read.

So yes, I believe Gore did win the election, and I do believe it was what God intended.

I also believe that God uses people in high positions for his overall plan. He did it in the bible days, and He most certainly does now.

Great examples in the bible: He used the Pharoah of Egypt to bless Joseph after passing all his trials and tribulations. Reference: Genesis 41 (entire chapter) He used King Nebuchadnezzar (probably didn't spell that right) to destroy the city of Jerusalem because of Israel's sins. (See the book of II Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra). Yes, in the Bible, God uses even Kings (good or evil) to work out His will and even to bring forth His judgment for certain groups of people or even one person--in this case, I believe He used Bush to combat terrorism and to depose the evil Hussein who had it coming. ("Vengeance is mine" says the Lord.) Now the Iraqis are free and this evil man is finally caught.

Even though I don't agree with all that Bush is for or what he does, I do believe he is being used by God and with the faith I have, I believe everything is going as planned and that God's got everything going they way he wants it go whether we like it or not--whether we believe in Him or we don't.

~endangeredsp