The United States Presidential Election of 2000 was special because it was one of the few elections in which the victorious candidate was unable to win the popular vote. Democratic candidate Al Gore received half a million more votes that his republican opponent George W. Bush. However, due to the electoral college system that has been in place for many years in the United States, Bush was elected to be the next president.
It may seem shocking that the election was within 500,000 votes. What is even more shocking is that the election came down to just one state: Florida. The state of Florida has 25 electoral votes, and was the last state to be counted. When the counting was completed, the vote in Florida was separated by only 1,800 votes, but Bush ended up ahead. Many called for a recount, which the state of Florida began to ensue. However, Bush thought that a recount would be unfair, and sued Al Gore to stop the recount. Right as the recount began to turn in Al Gore's favor, the lawsuit was taken to the Supreme Court. So, yet a bigger shock, the Supreme Court voted with a result of 5-4 that a recount would be unconstitutional.
So, the election of 2000 came from 500,000 people, to 1,800 people, to 1 Supreme Court justice. Bush won by a hair, and many Americans today still question how just this victory was.
I have lots of people in my family that have varying views on this election. Ultimately whether they think the election results were fair or not directly correlate with who they wanted to win. The same seems to be true with the 2016 election. While Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she lost the presidential seat and again my family has different views of what was fair depending on who they voted for.
ReplyDeleteI think this debate became relevant again with the 2016 election as many wondered if the electoral system was really the best way to choose a candidate that would represent America the most accurately. I think it is interesting though how the 2000 election showed how something like the presidency can potentially come down to one justice's opinion and that justices are picked by presidents. On practical terms, I also think it's ludicrous that the election came down to things like determining what type of semi-punched mark would constitute a vote and brings up the larger issue of voting regulations by the federal government and having consistency between counties and states and ultimately throughout the nation.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting note how Bush ended up suing Al Gore for something like that mid-election. They also didn't have a way to recount the votes which put Al Gore at a disadvantage and Bush got something like a second chance to win. I don't know they didn't use another way to vote instead of having votes poke a hole in a paper. That election seems like it was very complex.
ReplyDeleteI think the information you provided is really interesting, although no one in my family actively followed up with that period of elections, I think that the fact the election came down to one single state was definitely repeated in the previous 2016 election period. Both times, it demonstrated a serious divide in American's political view points. It's also interesting to see that Bush had sued Al Gore for the recount, since this was also oddly reappearing in the recent election where many asked for a recount for Clinton's votes.
ReplyDeleteThis crazy stressful presidential fight was a test to our previously set up democratic voting system. After Gore lost due to the electoral colleges, people started questioning the fairness of electoral colleges and if the vote was in fact fair. The entire complication with miscounted votes was also scandalous because they should definitely have been recounted.
ReplyDelete