Talk:2000 United States presidential election/Archive 1
Why isn't the "US Election 2000" page a redirect here? And why isn't "2000" a subpage to "U.S. presidential election"? Having an article about each election as a main topic seems a bit overenthusiastic. --Pinkunicorn
There are elections held in the U.S. every year--local, state, or national (sometimes all three). "U.S. election 2000" simply doesn't mean "U.S. presidential election." As for the second question, please see the essays about subpages at Larry Sanger/Columns. Subpages are evil. --LMS
I don't agree. If the idea is that this is the only election with an entry (because of it being unusually bungled), then I think this name is fine for the article. If there are going to be lots of them, then they should be on subpages. Look in a normal encyclopedia and you'll find that articles have subheadings (and no, Wikipedia is not paper is not a valid answer). Having them on subpages gives us a natural place for a summary. --Pinkunicorn
"If there are going to be lots of them, then they should be on subpages." I don't understand this. I don't see how the antecedent implies the consequent.
I am opposed to subpages basically on principle. I am inclined to think we should completely eliminate them, and I wish Clifford had never added that feature. :-) (Except that it sure has made talk pages easier, and without them this project would be a mess.) If you read my essays, Pink, you'll see why I say this. (Although I haven't, admittedly, given any defense of eliminating them entirely. That would require a bit more argument--or, probably, just extension of the argument I've already given. Generally, after months of experience working with them, I have grown to loathe them. It's mainly because I don't understand them--what the hell does the slash mean? It doesn't mean anything determinate. The slash just indicates that the subject of the part of the title after the slash was thought by someone to be in some fashion subordinate to the subject of the part of the title before the slash. Anyway, I feel like I'm just starting to repeat what I've already written (though, please, bear in mind that the above is only one of my arguments), and it's getting to late for me to be doing this anyway. --LMS
Okay I noticed a mistake in this article. Harry Browne was not on the ballot in all 50 states in 2000, due to some legal rangling involving two different groups which claimed to be THE Libertarian Party of Arizona he didn't get on the ballot in that state. The renegade state party put L. Neil Smith, a science-fiction author on the ballot instead.
Here's the scoop: http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=151 --MemoryHole.com
- The new version is more accurate (50 of 51 ballots). --DanKeshet
This isn't quite right
- The "spoiler" dynamic created by the Nader candidacy is a consequence of Duverger's Law, which states that the plurality-based voting system (used in the United States) reinforces the two-party system.
The problem here is that Presidental elections isn't quite first past the post system because of the electoral college. If it were Gore would have won. Now one could argue that the electoral college reinforces the two party system, but that isn't Duverger's law. One might try to argue that Gore lost because Nader took away votes in some key states, but that's different from what the paragraph says and is also different from Duverger's law.
Electors in most states are picked using first-past-the-post, and so Duverger's law absolutely applies here. It's a classic example of the effect. William Riker, considered an authority on the subject, brings up the 1968 U.S. Presidential election as a clear example of Duverger's law at work, citing the research of Bensel and Sanders in analyzing the results of this election.
I'll try to make the subtleties a little more clear, but the applicability of Duverger's law to U.S presidential politics (and Bush/Gore/Nader specifically) can hardly be refuted.
I think there was some kind of civil rights investigation into the Florida elections procedures well after the fact. Would it be appropriate to document the investigation's findings in this article? Wesley
It seems that there is more information on the 2000 election on the Bush page than there is here. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I propose moving most of the 2000 election information OFF of the George W. Bush page and putting it here. --Ed Poor
- Thanks for the move, Cunc. --Ed
Can anyone add statistics concerning the percentage of voter participation into this article? Florida voter partipication might be especially interesting... Thanks. --Chuck Smith
129.186.80.115: What does "A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (some for crimes committed in the future)" mean? It's a provocative tidbit but it needs to be clarified.
Does it mean:
- A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (because they committed crimes between voting and the tabulation of the vote) and a number of voters who had never committed crimes were also falsely listed as felons?
- A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (because they committed crimes after the tabulation of the vote)?
- A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (some of these later committed crimes, but this should not have affected the validity of their votes)?
- something else?
A number of voters were listed as felons despite never having committed a crime and despite the alleged crime having been stated as occuring in the future. It was a huge goddamn scandal... Lir 23:31 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)
- Ditto. What the heck is this? Changed wording pending clarification.
- From Recent Changes: "U.S. presidential election, 2000; 17:22 . . Vicki Rosenzweig (alleged felonies dated as late as 2007)"
On another note, WHAT THE FUCK! How could this not have been a huge goddamn scandal?!? Is this true? Am I living in Guatemala or something? I'd REALLY like to see a reference for this (mostly for my own education). Graft
- Your reference: The Great Florida Ex-Con Game -- How the “felon” voter-purge was itself felonious (Harper's Magazine, March 2002) -- RobLa
A bit of general background: American elections have always had a tinge of corruption, more or less.
Another background factoid: other democratic countries have had as much, if not more.
My favorite factoid: most countries called "democratic" are in fact totalitarian (like "People's democratic republic of tarfustan")
--Ed Poor
- Don't knock the proud and free country of Tarfustan, Ed. Some of my best friends are Tarfustani:)Tokerboy 21:58 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
- The election was marked by the extraordinarily close vote in Florida, whose electoral votes determined the election.
I can't think of a better way to word this, but it is not factually true. Florida's electoral votes no more determined the outcome than any other conglomeration of the same number of electoral votes. Florida was simply the last state to come to a conclusion about who won in the state; if the race hadn't been close in rest of the country too, Florida's debacle would have been a footnote outside of Florida. Tokerboy 21:58 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Please revise the sentence so that POV is either (a) labelled as Democratic or whover espouses it; or (b) removed from the article. We might say, some partisans of X party believe that Florida determined the election or some observers believe that TV "calling" the vote before the largely pro-Bush western panhandle of Florida had finished voting caused the whole Florida mess. --Ed Poor
How about US presidential election of 2000 Susan Mason
Why? Are elections in the US usually written as the 'election of {year}'? In Europe they are usually written as 'Election 2000' 'Election in 2000' or 'Election, 2000' never 'Election of 2000' unless in a sentence where one talks of the election of 2000. But that is the only context I've ever seen it mentioned in. It makes far more sense stylistically to say 'US president election, 2000' because it draws attention to the fact in the title that there are to aspects, 'US presidential election' and '2000'. Turning it to one complete sentence would be cumbersome and would require all past names be changed. There would want to be a fery good reason to change everything and rename everything from scratch. I cannot think of a single reason for doing it. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:58 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Well, everytime I refer to the election I write US Presidential Election of 2000 and it seems gramatically incorrect to have a comma for, as far as I can tell, no reason at all. Susan Mason
The comma is used in the context of the title to divide between the two main facts contained in the title, that it is concerned with the US presidential election and that it is concerned with the year 2000. That format would not be used in a sentence, because it would look, sound and be grammatically incorrect, but it is often used in a title, where the title is not itself self-contained but but is in effect part of a series; US presidential election, 1996, US presidential, 1960. US presidential election, 1940s. Sometimes commas are used, sometimes colons. The effect is to the same, to indicate that the title is part of a chain and not completely self contained. It is complicated but I suppose we seem to be stuck with it. But it is the format used in titles referring to elections in Europe, etc. For example, the general election in Ireland last year was described in titles and in screen graphics as 'General Election, 2002' or 'election 2002'. It is the standard form in titles that makes it clear it is part of a series, where the year varies. US presidential election of 2000 would make the title too self-contained, or so the theory goes to people who design these things. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:18 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
If we seem to be stuck with it, it is only because you don't want to let me change it. Substituting the standard , for of would transmist just as much information, and agree with the style of having article titles match a commonly used phrase -- I don't think it's common to say, "And the winner of the US Presidential election, 2000, was GW!" People do speak of the election of such and such a year. Susan Mason
FCOL Susan, I've just explained to you. There is a difference between the title that is used generally to refer to elections, and the words spoken.This is a title, repeat a title. What people say are words, not a title. And no you cannot try yet another unilaterally change, this case a title that is part of a series without getting widespread agreement just because you feel like it. What is it about you trying to unilaterally change titles or listings that are the work of many people without getting agreement of other people? I didn't pick this title. I simply explained to you why this form of title is generally used by sourcebooks, by media organisations in their graphics layouts, by books, by magazines. It is not me stopping you. It is the collective of everyone who has worked on a series of these pages. Do you have some sort of fetish about trying to annoy as many people as possible? Not a single person has supported your idea. All I did was come on constructively to explain to you why this format probably was chosen for all the election pages. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:52 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Well, who are these shadow people who created this naming system and for whom you are speaking? So far, only you have spoken about it, so please don't try to use some kind of bandwagon argument. Furthermore, how is this naming system better than US Presidential Election of 2000. How would you say, "The US Presidential Election of 2000 occurred in 2000", surely you would not say, "The U.S. Presidential Election, 2000, occurred in 2000". I am often argued against by people stating that what we have to use is the name which people are most likely to write when editing an article, as I am sick of using a redirect, I am curious what other people are using to link to this page when they write about it.Susan Mason
So far I am the only person who has even bothered to take your idea seriously enough to warrant talking about. And I think it is ludicrous idea. Are you going to take on the responsibility of renaming every single article on wiki to confirm to your unique idea? To fix hundreds and hundreds of links? Or do you simply want to cause chaos here to and then move on somewhere else? STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:07 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
I highly doubt that I am the only one who feels the name should be changed, I would guess most people are afraid to argue with you and your insulting behavior. It is clear that your argument eventually collapses to "its too much work", luckily its really not that hard to move a page. Susan Mason
- I don't think either one is more useful or accurate than the other. Thus, I don't support any move as it would be a waste of time. Tuf-Kat
Im not asking you to make the move. Furthermore, changing the name of the page means that one doesnt have to use a redirect when one writes, "The Presidential Election of 2000 resulted in a victory for GW!" Susan Mason