A Senator stands up, 2000

HueyLong

Banned
The Infallible Wikipedia said:
On January 6, 2001, a joint-session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate , ruled each of these objections out of order. Bush subsequently became the President-elect

So, lets assume a Senator does object to the electoral returns. First off, who is most likely to do so? Secondly, what effect does this have on the final result?
 
Who would have stood up? Any far left senator. What would be the final result? Bush wins. All the votes had been recounted by then. Bush won by every counting method that the Democrats supported (though not by some of his own suggested methods, lol). However, if the total had not come out in favor of Bush, congress would have gotten involved we would be slaming President Gore for invading Iraq.

If the Dems went ahead and made Gore the president (even though he lost when all the votes where recounted) you would have had civil disorder and chaos (Remember, the red states are the ones with the guns). The presidency has only been stolen twice: JFK vs. Nixon [Mob fix in Chicago for JFK] and a deal in 1876 to end reconstruction of the south. Both of these cases where far less explicitly than this would have been.


People still like to claim the election was stolen, but every objective measure shows that it was not.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. What exactly happens if a Senator does sponsor this, then?
 
Who would have stood up? Any far left senator. What would be the final result? Bush wins. All the votes had been recounted by then. Bush won by every counting method that the Democrats supported (though not by some of his own suggested methods, lol). However, if the total had not come out in favor of Bush, congress would have gotten involved we would be slaming President Gore for invading Iraq.

Not necessisarily. I can see the hypothetical senator demanding a statewide recount, which would have given Gore the Presidency (oddly, Bush would have lost if his perfered method of recount was used, same for gore:D). If they just back Gore's proposed method, then the Dems lose (thing of the chaos that might potentially cause). And why, out of curiosity, would Gore have invaded Iraq? I can see him doing many things, but invading on the basis of trumped up intelligence created by Bush cronies is really stretching things.

If the Dems went ahead and made Gore the president (even though he lost when all the votes where recounted) you would have had civil disorder and chaos (Remember, the red states are the ones with the guns). The presidency has only been stolen twice: JFK vs. Nixon [Mob fix in Chicago for JFK] and a deal in 1876 to end reconstruction of the south. Both of these cases where far less explicitly than this would have been.

I don't see how they can pull off the installation of gore after losing (twice) the way you postulate. On the other hand, if the recount succeeds, then why will America spontaniously collapse into disorder? In this scenario, the winner of the popular vote is installed as president after a recount reverses some shady electoral returns in Florida. As far as election stealing: 1876 was a travesty of american democracy on both sides. 1960, however, is not the direct parallel that many believe. For starters, Kennedy's margin of victory was larger then any fraud would suggest; there were electoral irregularities in Democratic and republican presincts at the same time, and winning Illinois (meaning taking Chicago, which has only gone Republican once in the last 40 years, is heavily democratic to this day, and was run by the daley Machine (which could carry the county easily enough legally for Kennedy)). Americans can handle losing elections (I hope). I'm also suprised you left the 1824 and 2000 elections as well. Both of them were dodgy, at least on the surface.

People still like to claim the election was stolen, but every objective measure shows that it was not.

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this. Because, for one thing, I thought it had been proven that a state recount could have elected Gore, depending on the type of recount used.

Personally, this is an excellent example of the flaws in the electoral college. When a candidate wins a majority of around 550,000 votes (although oddly enough, in 2000 that was a plurality, not technically a majority) and still loses because of the resultes in one state, there are some problems.

[disclaimer] I did not intend for this to get political in the same way that Political chat gets political (neverending debates (although given the way these discussions of Bush v Gore go, that may be a hopeless cause)). I just wanted to throw out some ideas about the recount as a whole, and the past precedent[/disclaimer]
 
I remember there was a statewide recount, which gave the lead to Bush anyway (by 150 votes).

I thought the Dems' big issue was they wanted a hand recount of three disputed counties.

I personally think the only leg the "Bush stole it in 2000" people have to stand on is the fact that a bunch of blacks will erroneously removed from the voter rolls earlier (due to name confusions with convicted felons) and that seems like a bureaucratic screwup rather than a deliberate attempt to steal the election.
 
I personally think the only leg the "Bush stole it in 2000" people have to stand on is the fact that a bunch of blacks will erroneously removed from the voter rolls earlier (due to name confusions with convicted felons) and that seems like a bureaucratic screwup rather than a deliberate attempt to steal the election.

I too think that this is the clearest aspect of the stealing of the 2000 election., Oh and if you think that this was an innocent screw up there is this lovely bridge I would like to sell you...
 
I remember there was a statewide recount, which gave the lead to Bush anyway (by 150 votes).

I thought the Dems' big issue was they wanted a hand recount of three disputed counties.

I personally think the only leg the "Bush stole it in 2000" people have to stand on is the fact that a bunch of blacks will erroneously removed from the voter rolls earlier (due to name confusions with convicted felons) and that seems like a bureaucratic screwup rather than a deliberate attempt to steal the election.

Actually believe in all but one of the independent media recounts after the election gore won, with Bush only wining under the narrowest of criteria.
 

HueyLong

Banned
9 methods were used to recount the ballots. 4 came out in favor of Bush. 5 came out in favor of Gore. The Republican Secretary of State (under Jeb Bush) validated one of the recounts that favored Bush.

Which, IMO, sounds like some obvious political dealing.

Also note that the Senate has re-done an election (in Connecticut, IIRC) for having a margin of 100 votes. Indiana has also redone a Congressional election after a Republican Secretary of State validated a result with (again, IIRC) 36 votes (so a much lesser margin, but still) that resulted in a Republican victory. That decision resulted in the Democratic candidate finally winning, and there was no political outcry.

Secondly, considering that there were no riots over Gore losing, I doubt that there would be riots over Bush losing. Some of the resentment and sentiments of the election being stolen would be pandered about in far-right circles, but most Republicans would grudgingly accept the results- just like Democrats did. Modern Americans aren't the type for civil disorder, especially not over an election with low turnouts.
 
I remember there was a statewide recount, which gave the lead to Bush anyway (by 150 votes).

I thought the Dems' big issue was they wanted a hand recount of three disputed counties.

I personally think the only leg the "Bush stole it in 2000" people have to stand on is the fact that a bunch of blacks will erroneously removed from the voter rolls earlier (due to name confusions with convicted felons) and that seems like a bureaucratic screwup rather than a deliberate attempt to steal the election.

The company that the state of Flordia hired to check the rolls was owned by a man who was a hardcore Bush supporter. Coincidence?

Torqumada
 
The company that the state of Flordia hired to check the rolls was owned by a man who was a hardcore Bush supporter. Coincidence?

Torqumada

Of course not. And the fact that the contested state of florida's governor was Bush's younger brother had nothing at all to do with that at all, and would have had no bearing on the decision in the first place.

Atreus
 
I've said it before, although maybe not here, and I'll say it again right now; the American electoral system is needlessly complex and just plain wierd. I mean 'types of recount'? Companies that do the counting? What the hell is wrong with ticking a box with a pencil and having them counted by public servants? It works just fine in other sophisticated democracies.
 
Torq, and every single politician involved in the ballot that caused the problem was a Democrat, none of whom saw any conceivable problem until the night of the election. Your point is?


Huey, let's not forget that the Democrats in Florida threw out @5000 ballots cast by servicemen overseas, because such votes were likely to lean heavily GOP. Since this was illegal, indeed, the argument used to toss these ballots had been found illegal by the Supreme Court years before and has since been reaffirmed, a recount would to be an interesting affair, since there is no way to know which individual serviceman's ballot was kept or tossed.

Can't hold a brand new election, counting 5000 votes proportional to how the average serviceman votes is NOT going to please the Democrats, what a mess.:rolleyes:


Atreus, thank you!:) This legend of the 1876 election consistently ignores the far greater crimes of the Democrats, starting with Jim Crow 'laws' being used to strip hundreds of thousands of African-American voters of their rights, not to mention some prominent Democrats, the pathetic general McCellan for one, calling for violence and civil strife 11 years after the American Civil War had ended.


In the event one member of the House AND the Senate protests the Constitution's procedure is clear:

1) The House of Representatives votes, one vote per state. In 2000 this would mean 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats. It moves to the Senate...

2) In the event that the Senate also votes for Bush, Bush wins. In the event that the House and Senate split, possible even before considering that Al Gore gets to vote in the event of a tie in the Senate, the Constitution is explicit...

3) The governor of the state in question shall determine which candidate receives the electoral votes of his state. In this case, the governor concerned is Jeb Bush.

4) The nation rejoices that the US Supreme Court didn't get involved as Jeb Bush alone decides the 2000 presidential election.:)


That last bit WAS a joke.;)
 
You lost your credibility with the second sentence. "Far left senator"? In the US Senate? The only leftist I can think of is Bernie Sanders, and he wasn't a Senator in 2000.

Far left relative to American politics. And yes if any of them had really thought Gore had won, they would have stood up. Nothing I stated was un-factual.


Furthermore, I find your method of determining creditability based on them sharing your politically view as pretty lame. Seems like a rather childish standard.
 
Actually believe in all but one of the independent media recounts after the election gore won, with Bush only wining under the narrowest of criteria.

Define "independent media." Some define "independent" as "leftist" (Counterpunch and all them).

I was under the impression Gore lost by Gore's criteria and Bush lost by Bush's criteria, which is kind of ironic.
 
I've said it before, although maybe not here, and I'll say it again right now; the American electoral system is needlessly complex and just plain wierd. I mean 'types of recount'? Companies that do the counting? What the hell is wrong with ticking a box with a pencil and having them counted by public servants? It works just fine in other sophisticated democracies.

Well, this is more a 2004 than 2000 issue, but using electronic voting machines means the results are in faster.
 
Listen, I did not intend for this to get into a GOP vs DEM political debate (Partisans of both sides cannot rationally argue this stuff). I did the research on who won the votes at the time of the counts and I find it to be pretty conclusive. In the end what I believe matter little.

What the majority of American's believed is what matters. And from polls at the time they believed that Bush had won (and that they wanted the whole affair over).

If the majority of Americans had believed Bush had won and Gore was still installed President, there would have been civil disorder and chaos. No one has even stolen an American election on the scale that 2000 would have been.

The same would have been true if Americans believed Gore had won.

People tend to forget this stuff, but Gore, Clinton and the Dems where very much for removing Saddam. Clinton came very close to invading Iraq again 1998(Might be wrong on the date). I think it's very likely Gore would have invaded Iraq as well. Would have screwed things up as well as Bush? No clue. I don't have a way to evaluate that.
 
Last edited:
Atreus, thank you!:) This legend of the 1876 election consistently ignores the far greater crimes of the Democrats, starting with Jim Crow 'laws' being used to strip hundreds of thousands of African-American voters of their rights, not to mention some prominent Democrats, the pathetic general McCellan for one, calling for violence and civil strife 11 years after the American Civil War had ended.

Thanks, Grimm. I did a fair amount of research on the 1876 election a while back, and am glad to see that I finally have a use for at least some of it. I think I still have a copy of the Hayes Presidential diaries and some old newspaper prints lying around somewhere. But what I found out about both sides was just shocking, in terms of how easily and readily they subverted democracy. My personal opinion is that Tilden won, just because he won the popular vote with a decent majority. If you go to the electoral college, it gets to tangled to tell (although it seems likely that he won there two). And the consequences of the election weren't exactly good either.
 
Top