Jump to content

2000 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Marking inuse; splitting Florida to a separate article as much as feasible
Split most Florida content off to United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results. Working on that next.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{inuse}}
[[Image:US presidential election 2000 map.svg|thumb|320px|Presidential election results map. <font color="#CC2200">Red</font> denotes states won by Bush/Cheney, <font color="darkblue">Blue</font> denotes those won by Gore/Lieberman. Numbers indicate electoral votes made by each state.]]
[[Image:US presidential election 2000 map.svg|thumb|320px|Presidential election results map. <font color="#CC2200">Red</font> denotes states won by Bush/Cheney, <font color="darkblue">Blue</font> denotes those won by Gore/Lieberman. Numbers indicate electoral votes made by each state.]]


Line 5: Line 4:


This election marked the third time in [[United States]] history that a candidate had definitively won the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] and thus the Presidency without winning a [[plurality]] of the popular vote. (This also happened in the elections of [[United States presidential election, 1876|1876]] and [[United States presidential election, 1888|1888]].)
This election marked the third time in [[United States]] history that a candidate had definitively won the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] and thus the Presidency without winning a [[plurality]] of the popular vote. (This also happened in the elections of [[United States presidential election, 1876|1876]] and [[United States presidential election, 1888|1888]].)

== Introduction ==
The [[United States Supreme Court]] voted 7–2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection]] violation, and 5–4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted. The 7–2 ruling was more important as the votes had already been counted several times with uniform standards. However, the 5–4 decision became extremely controversial due to the partisan split in the court's 5–4 decision and the majority's irregular instruction that its judgment in [[Bush v. Gore]] should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances". Gore publicly disagreed with the court's decision, but conceded the election "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy". He had previously made a concession phone call to Bush the night of the election, then retracted it after learning just how close the election was. Following the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision) but that Gore would have won had a full state-wide recount been conducted. <ref>http://www.amstat.org/misc/PresidentialElectionBallots.pdf (The American Statistitian, February 2003, Vol. 57, No.1)</ref>
[[image:Butterfly_large.jpg|thumb|400px|"Butterfly ballot"]]
The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several irregularities are thought to have favored Bush. These included the [[Palm Beach County, Florida|Palm Beach]] "butterfly ballot", which produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, and a purge of some 50,000 alleged felons from the Florida voting rolls that included many voters who were eligible to vote under Florida law. Some commentators still consider such irregularities and the legal maneuvering around the recounts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the vote, but as a matter of law the issue was settled when the [[Congress of the United States|United States Congress]] accepted Florida's electoral delegation. Nonetheless, embarrassment about the Florida vote uncertainties led to widespread calls for electoral reform in the United States and ultimately to the passage of the [[Help America Vote Act]], which authorized the [[United States federal government]] to provide funds to the states to replace their mechanical voting equipment with [[electronic voting]] equipment. However, this has led to new controversies including the lack of paper-based methods of verification and the complexity of testing required to certify correct operation of computer-based systems.


==Nominations==
==Nominations==
Line 85: Line 79:
[[Ralph Nader]] was the most successful of third-party candidates, drawing 2.74% of the popular vote. His campaign was marked by a traveling tour of "super-rallies"; large rallies held in sports arenas like [[Madison Square Garden]], with filmmaker [[Michael Moore]] as master of ceremonies. After initially ignoring Nader, the Gore campaign made a big publicity pitch to (potential) Nader supporters in the final weeks of the campaign, downplaying Gore's differences with Nader on the issues and claiming that Gore's ideas were more similar to Nader's than Bush's were, noting that Gore had a better chance of winning than Nader. On the other side, the [[Republican Leadership Council]] ran pro-Nader ads in a few states in an effort to split the "left" vote.<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm Washington Post], Oct. 27, 2000.</ref> In the aftermath of the campaign, many Gore supporters blamed Nader for drawing enough would-be Gore votes to push Bush over Gore, labeling Nader a [[Spoiler effect|"spoiler" candidate]].
[[Ralph Nader]] was the most successful of third-party candidates, drawing 2.74% of the popular vote. His campaign was marked by a traveling tour of "super-rallies"; large rallies held in sports arenas like [[Madison Square Garden]], with filmmaker [[Michael Moore]] as master of ceremonies. After initially ignoring Nader, the Gore campaign made a big publicity pitch to (potential) Nader supporters in the final weeks of the campaign, downplaying Gore's differences with Nader on the issues and claiming that Gore's ideas were more similar to Nader's than Bush's were, noting that Gore had a better chance of winning than Nader. On the other side, the [[Republican Leadership Council]] ran pro-Nader ads in a few states in an effort to split the "left" vote.<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001027/aponline115918_000.htm Washington Post], Oct. 27, 2000.</ref> In the aftermath of the campaign, many Gore supporters blamed Nader for drawing enough would-be Gore votes to push Bush over Gore, labeling Nader a [[Spoiler effect|"spoiler" candidate]].


====Issues====
The sharpest differences among partisan groups came on the topic of morality. Already by 1992, Republicans were much more concerned than Democrats or independents about the alleged moral decay of society, in the form of permissive attitudes toward sex, abortion, gays and lesbians, and secularism. The difference grew larger by 2000, especially if one adds together the moral decay category and the category having to do with corruption and scandals in Washington. Morality was mentioned most frequently by Republicans as the "single most important problem" facing the nation.<ref>[Miller and Klobucar 2003]</ref> Therefore during his campaign Bush frequently referred to restoring moral integrity not only to the White House but to the nation as a whole. Gore on the other hand studiously avoided the Clinton scandals, as did Lieberman, even though Lieberman had been the first Democratic senator to denounce Clinton's misbehavior. Gore avoided appearing with Clinton, who was shunted to low visibility appearances in minority areas.
The sharpest differences among partisan groups came on the topic of morality. Already by 1992, Republicans were much more concerned than Democrats or independents about the alleged moral decay of society, in the form of permissive attitudes toward sex, abortion, gays and lesbians, and secularism. The difference grew larger by 2000, especially if one adds together the moral decay category and the category having to do with corruption and scandals in Washington. Morality was mentioned most frequently by Republicans as the "single most important problem" facing the nation.<ref>[Miller and Klobucar 2003]</ref> Therefore during his campaign Bush frequently referred to restoring moral integrity not only to the White House but to the nation as a whole. Gore on the other hand studiously avoided the Clinton scandals, as did Lieberman, even though Lieberman had been the first Democratic senator to denounce Clinton's misbehavior. Gore avoided appearing with Clinton, who was shunted to low visibility appearances in minority areas.


=== Disputes ===
== The election ==
The outcome of the [[November 7]] election was not known for more than a month after the balloting, because of the extended process of counting and then recounting of Florida presidential ballots, which would ultimately decide the election. State results tallied on election night gave 246 electoral votes to Bush and 255 to Gore, with [[New Mexico]] (5), [[Oregon]] (7), and [[Florida]] (25) too close to call at the time. Since 270 electoral votes are required to win, Florida would put either candidate over the top, and the other two states were irrelevant. (Both New Mexico and Oregon were declared in favor of Gore over the next few days, making it 246–267.)
The outcome of the [[November 7]] election was not known for more than a month after the balloting, because of the extended process of counting and then recounting of Florida presidential ballots, which would ultimately decide the election. State results tallied on election night gave 246 electoral votes to Bush and 255 to Gore, with [[New Mexico]] (5), [[Oregon]] (7), and [[Florida]] (25) too close to call at the time. Since 270 electoral votes are required to win, Florida would put either candidate over the top, and the other two states were irrelevant. (Both New Mexico and Oregon were declared in favor of Gore over the next few days, making it 246–267.)


After Florida was decided, [[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] became President-elect on December 13, and began forming his transition committee. Bush said he was reaching across party lines to bridge a divided America, stating that "the President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race, and every background."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html</ref>
Bush won the election night vote count in Florida by a little over 2,000 votes. Florida state law provided for an automatic recount due to the small margins. There were general concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the voting process, especially since a small change in the vote count could change the result. The final (and disputed) official Florida count gave the victory to Bush by 537 votes, making it the tightest race of the campaign (at least in percentage terms; New Mexico was decided by 363 votes but has a much smaller population, meaning those 363 votes represent a 0.061% difference while the 537 votes in Florida are just 0.009%). Most of the reduction in the ensuing recount came from Miami-Dade county alone, a statistical anomaly.

Once the closeness of the election in Florida was clear, both the Bush and Gore campaigns organized themselves for the ensuing legal process. The Bush campaign hired [[George H. W. Bush]]'s former [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[James Baker]] to oversee their legal team, and the Gore campaign hired [[Bill Clinton]]'s former Secretary of State [[Warren Christopher]].

The Gore campaign, as allowed by Florida statute, requested that disputed ballots in four counties be counted by hand. Florida statutes also required that all counties certify and report their returns, including any recounts, by 5 p.m. on [[November 14]]. The manual recounts were time-consuming, and, when it became clear that some counties would not complete their recounts before the deadline, both Volusia and Palm Beach Counties sued to have their deadlines extended. The Bush campaign, in response to state litigation in the case of ''Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris'', filed suit in federal court against extending the statutory deadlines for the manual recounts. Besides deadlines, also in dispute were the criteria that each county's canvassing board would use in examining the overvotes and/or undervotes. Numerous local court rulings went both ways, some ordering recounts because the vote was so close and others declaring that a selective manual recount in a few heavily-Democratic counties would be unfair. Eventually, the Gore campaign appealed to the Florida Supreme Court which ordered the recounting process to proceed. The Bush campaign subsequently appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] (SCOTUS) which took up the case ''Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board'' on [[December 1]]. On [[December 4]], the SCOTUS returned this matter to the Florida Supreme Court for clarification due to their "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons for certain aspects of the decision. The Florida Supreme Court clarified its ruling on this matter while the United States Supreme Court was deliberating ''[[Bush v. Gore]]''.

At 4:00 p.m. [[Eastern Standard Time Zone|EST]] on [[December 8]], the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, ordered a manual recount, under the supervision of the Leon County Circuit Court, of disputed ballots in all Florida counties and the portion of Miami-Dade county in which such a recount was not already complete. That decision was announced on live world-wide television by the Florida Supreme Court's spokesman [[Craig Waters]], the Court's [[public information officer]]. The Court further ordered that only undervotes be considered. The results of this tally were to be added to the November 14 tally. This count was in progress on [[December 9]], when the United States Supreme Court 5-4 (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting) granted Bush's emergency plea for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court recount ruling, stopping the incomplete recount, which had an unofficial lead of only 154 votes for Bush.

About 10 p.m. EST on [[December 12]], the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 5–4 vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]].

The crucial 5 to 4 decision held that insufficient time remained to implement a unified standard and therefore all recounts must stop.

[[Texas]] Governor [[George W. Bush]] became President-elect and began forming his transition committee. Bush said he was reaching across party lines to bridge a divided America, stating that "the President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race, and every background."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html</ref>


On [[January 6]], [[2001]], a joint-session of [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] met to certify the [[United States Electoral College|electoral vote]]. Twenty members of the [[United States House of Representatives|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 [[United States Senate|senator]], and no senator would co-sponsor these objections. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as [[Vice President of the United States|President of the Senate]], ruled each of these objections out of order.
On [[January 6]], [[2001]], a joint-session of [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] met to certify the [[United States Electoral College|electoral vote]]. Twenty members of the [[United States House of Representatives|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 [[United States Senate|senator]], and no senator would co-sponsor these objections. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as [[Vice President of the United States|President of the Senate]], ruled each of these objections out of order.
Line 150: Line 131:
#<font color="darkblue">'''Pennsylvania''', 4.17%</font>
#<font color="darkblue">'''Pennsylvania''', 4.17%</font>


== Florida election results ==
=== Florida ===
<!-- A brief paragraph probably belongs here to describe what happened in Florida, with a pointer to the article below. -->
{{splitsection}}
''Article: [[United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results]]''
On election night, it quickly became clear that Florida would be a contentious state. The national television networks (through information provided them by the [[Voter News Service]], an organization formed by them and the [[Associated Press]] to help determine the outcome of the election through early result tallies and exit polling) first called Florida for Gore in the hour after polls closed in the eastern peninsula but before they closed in the heavily Republican counties of the [[Florida panhandle|western panhandle]]. (The peninsula is in the [[North American Eastern Standard Time Zone|Eastern time zone]], while the panhandle is on [[Central Standard Time Zone|Central time]].) After the polls had closed in the panhandle, the networks retracted their call for Gore, calling the state for Bush; then retracted that call as well, finally indicating the state was "too close to call".


== Aftermath ==
Due to the narrow margin of the original vote count, Florida law mandated a [[Florida Recount|statewide recount]]. In addition, the Gore campaign requested that the votes in three counties be recounted by hand. Florida state law at the time allowed the candidate to request a manual recount by protesting the results of at least three precincts.<ref>F.S. Ch. 102.166</ref> The county canvassing board would then decide whether to recount as well as the method of the recount in those three precincts.<ref>F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 4</ref> If the board discovered an error, they were then authorized to recount the ballots. <ref>F.S. Ch. 102.166 Part 5</ref> The canvassing board did not discover any errors in the tabulation process in the initial mandated recount. The Bush campaign sued to prevent additional recounts on the basis that no errors were found in the tabulation method until [[chad (paper)|subjective measures]] were applied in manual recounts. This [[Bush v. Gore|case]] eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled 5–4 to stop the vote recount, allowing Florida Secretary of State [[Katherine Harris]] to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner. Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes violated the Constitutional guarantee of [[Equal Protection Amendment|equal protection of the laws]], but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.
===Electronic voting===
{{see also|Bush v. Gore|Gore v. Harris (Harris II)|Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v. Harris (Harris I)}}

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Final certified vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes)
|-
!Presidential Candidate
!Vote Total
!%
!Party
|-
|[[George W. Bush]] '''(W)'''
|align="right"|2,912,790
|align="right"|48.850
|[[United States Republican Party|Republican]]
|-
|[[Al Gore]]
|align="right"|2,912,253
|align="right"|48.841
|[[United States Democratic Party|Democratic]]
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|align="right"|97,421
|align="right"|1.633
|[[Green Party of the United States|Green]]
|-
|[[Patrick J. Buchanan]]
|align="right"|17,412
|align="right"|0.292
|[[United States Reform Party|Reform]]
|-
|[[Harry Browne]]
|align="right"|16,102
|align="right"|0.270
|[[United States Libertarian Party|Libertarian]]
|-
|[[John Hagelin]]
|align="right"|2,274
|align="right"|0.038
|[[United States Natural Law Party|Natural Law]]/[[United States Reform Party|Reform]]
|-
|[[Howard Phillips]]
|align="right"|1,378
|align="right"|0.023
|[[United States Constitution Party|Constitution]]
|-
|Other
|align="right"|3,027
|align="right"|0.051
|colspan="2"|—
|-
|'''Total'''
|align="right"|'''5,962,657'''
|
|colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="6"|''Source: [http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/state/state_fl.html CBS News State Results for Election 2000]''
|}

However, data based on [http://www.fec.gov Federal Election Commission] are slightly different:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Federal official vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes)
|-
!Presidential Candidate
!Vote Total
!%
!Party
|-
|[[George W. Bush]] '''(W)'''
|align="right"|2,912,790
|align="right"|48.847
|[[United States Republican Party|Republican]]
|-
|[[Al Gore]]
|align="right"|2,912,253
|align="right"|48.838
|[[United States Democratic Party|Democratic]]
|-
|[[Ralph Nader]]
|align="right"|97,421
|align="right"|1.634
|[[Green Party of the United States|Green]]
|-
|[[Patrick J. Buchanan]]
|align="right"|17,484
|align="right"|0.293
|[[United States Reform Party|Reform]]
|-
|[[Harry Browne]]
|align="right"|16,415
|align="right"|0.275
|[[United States Libertarian Party|Libertarian]]
|-
|[[John Hagelin]]
|align="right"|2,281
|align="right"|0.038
|[[United States Natural Law Party|Natural Law]]/[[United States Reform Party|Reform]]
|-
|[[Howard Phillips]]
|align="right"|1,378
|align="right"|0.023
|[[United States Constitution Party|Constitution]]
|-
|Other
|align="right"|3,028
|align="right"|0.051
|colspan="2"|—
|-
|'''Total'''
|align="right"|'''5,963,110'''
|align="right"|''' '''
|colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="6"|''Source: [http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm 2000 OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS]''
|}

=== Controversy in Florida ===
Following the election a number of studies have been made of the electoral process in Florida by Democrats, Republicans, and other interested parties. A number of flaws and improprieties have been discovered in the process. Controversies included:

* Numerous media outlets made the incorrect assumption that all of Florida's polls closed at 7:00 PM EST, which was not the case. Westernmost counties in Florida had polls open until 8:00 PM EST, as they were part of the Central Time Zone, so were open for one additional hour. This region of the state traditionally voted mostly Republican. Because of the above mistaken assumption, some media outlets reported at 7:00 PM EST that all polls had closed in the state of Florida. Also, significantly, the [[Voter News Service]] called the state of Florida for Al Gore at 7:48 PM EST. A survey estimate by [http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2001/001206panh.htm John McLaughlin & Associates] put the number of voters who did not vote due to confusion as high as 15,000, which theoretically reduced Bush's margin of victory by an estimated 5,000 votes. This survey assumes that the turnout in the Panhandle counties (which was 65% of the electorate) would have equalled the statewide average of 68% if the media had not incorrectly reported the polls' closing time and if the state had not been called for Gore while the polls were still open. This opens the possibility that Bush would have won by a larger victory margin and controversy would have been avoided if the networks had known and reported the correct poll closing times, and called the state after all polls were closed. At the urging of the Republican party, some individuals made public statements to the effect that they would have voted for Bush, but did not vote because of the poll close time confusion, or the Gore call. However, there is no known corroborative evidence of any ''widespread'' or ''localized'' disenfranchisement beyond these individual statements. It is worth noting that both parties had extensive field operations on the ground throughout Florida, including in the Panhandle. Both field operations heavily publicized the correct polling hours; and local government and media also would have publicized the poll-closing times before the election. Moreover, the polling hours in 2000 were the same as they had been in previous elections. These factors presumably to some extent mitigated the damage done by the erroneous reports on election night.

* [[Jeb Bush]], the brother of George W. Bush, was governor of Florida, leading some Gore advocates to make various allegations of impropriety, especially due to their joint campaigning for the Republican vote in Florida and Jeb Bush's assurances to George W. Bush that the Republicans could win Florida. While it is typical for sitting governors to strongly campaign on behalf of the candidate with the same party affiliation, it is unusual for the governor to be related by blood to the candidate and in a position to influence the election in his favor. Some democracy advocates have taken offense at his request for the removal of Florida election officials explaining voting/recount law on TV.

* Democratic governors had appointed all seven justices sitting on the [[Florida Supreme Court]] during the 2000 Florida election controversy. Democratic governor (and later U.S. Senator) [[Bob Graham]] appointed Justice [[Leander J. Shaw]]. Democratic governor [[Lawton Chiles]] appointed Justices [[Fred Lewis]], [[Barbara Pariente]], [[Harry Lee Anstead]], [[Charles T. Wells]], and [[Major B. Harding]].<ref>See [[Lawton_Chiles#Judicial_Appointments]]</ref> Governor Chiles and Governor-elect [[Jeb Bush]], a Republican, jointly appointed Justice [[Peggy Quince]].

* State senator Daryll Jones claimed that on the day of the election there had been an order to set up road blocks. These road blocks were set disproportionately in Democratic regions of the state.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1102806.stm</ref>

* The actions of the Florida Secretary of State, [[Katherine Harris]], who was in charge of state election procedures, also came under fire, due to her status as a Bush state campaign co-chairwoman, her involvement with the "[[Florida Central Voter File|scrub list]]", and her behavior during the recount crisis. In particular democracy advocates have taken issue with her antagonizing of Democratic lawyers, dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the county including 12,000 with affidavits), and in particular her collaboration with Republican party advisers (at one point housing them).

* There were a number of overseas ballots missing [[postmark]]s or filled out in such a way that they were invalid under Florida law. A poll worker filled out the missing information on some absentee ballot applications; the Democrats moved to have the returned ballots thrown out because of this. These disputes added to the mass of litigation between parties to influence the counting of ballots. The largest group of disputed overseas ballots were military ballots, which the Republicans argued to have accepted.

* Some 179,855 ballots were not counted in the official tally. These were ballots which were mistakenly filled out. However, in predominantly white counties the [[voting machine]]s ([[Accuvote]]s) would return the ballot and allow voters to try again, whereas in predominantly black counties the reject mechanisms were not enabled, thus giving voters only one chance to mark the ballot correctly.

* A suit by [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People|NAACP]] (''NAACP v. Harris'') argued that Florida was in violation of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] and the [[United States Constitution|United States Constitution's]] [[Equal Protection Amendment]]. Settlement agreements were reached in this suit. <ref>http://www.choicepoint.net/85256B350053E646/0/16440966B650DEA685256BEB00461242?Open</ref> However, a systematic investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice found no evidence of racial discrimination. <ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~action/dojfl060702.html Letter to Congress]</ref>

* Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - [[Sandra Mortham]] and [[Katherine Harris]], contracted with a new company (DBT), at an increase of $4.294 million dollars to have the "[[Florida Central Voter File|scrub list]]"'s re-worked. Nearly 1 percent of Florida's electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters - 96.000 citizens were listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls. (For instance, many had names similar to actual felons, some listed "felonies" were dated years in the future, and some apparently were random.) In some cases, those on the scrub list were given several months to appeal, and many successfully reregistered and were allowed to vote. However, most were not told that they weren't allowed to vote until they were turned away at the polls. The company was directed not to use cross-checks or its sophisticated verification plan (used by the FBI). <ref>http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html</ref>

* People like [[Washington County, Florida|Washington County]] Elections Chief [[Carol Griffen]] ''([[The Best Democracy Money Can Buy|1 p.25]])'', have argued that Florida was in violation of the [[National Voter Registration Act of 1993]] by requiring those convicted of felonies in other states (and subsequently restored their rights by said states), to request clemency and a restoration of their rights, from Governor Bush, in a process which might take two years and ultimately was left to Bush's discretion. One should note [[Schlenther v. Florida Department of State]] (June [[1998]]) which ruled that Florida could not prevent a man convicted of a felony in [[Connecticut]], where his [[civil rights]] had not been lost, from exercising his civil rights.

* A full cousin of George W. Bush, [[John Prescott Ellis]], was analyzing data from the [[Voter News Service]] for [[Fox News]] and had several times contact by telephone with both George and Jeb Bush that night. It was his decision to call Florida for Bush, with Fox being the first network to do so. However, Fox had also incorrectly called the state for Gore before the polls had closed, like the other networks, and retracted around the same time they did which was at around 10pm that evening. Fox only called the state for Bush at 2:16am, shortly after the famous [[Volusia error]] was introduced. This error took 16,022 votes away from Gore and added those votes and more to Bush, producing more total votes in the precinct than there were registered voters. The other major networks announced the same totals within minutes. The error was corrected quickly and the calls retracted one by one.

* [[Xavier Suarez]], who was ousted as mayor of [[Miami]] in [[1998]] on charges of absentee voter fraud, was later elected to the Executive Committee of the Miami-Dade [[GOP]] party. Suarez helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County for the 2000 presidential election. “Dade County Republicans have a very specific expertise in getting out absentee ballots,” Suarez is claimed to have remarked. “I obviously have specific experience in this myself.” <ref>http://www.campaignwatch.org/semdtl.htm</ref>

* The "preppy riot": the manual recount in Miami-Dade County was shut down shortly after screaming protestors arrived at Miami's recount center. It turned out that these protesters were Republican Party members flown in from other states, some at Republican Party expense. <ref>http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/index.html</ref>

=== Palm Beach County's butterfly ballots ===
[[image:voterseyeview.jpg|thumb|220px|The "butterfly ballot", seen at an angle]]
The result of the Florida United States Presidential race was so close that one Florida county's ballots may have decided the presidency. Critics argue that some voters in [[Palm Beach County, Florida|Palm Beach County]] might have accidentally voted for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, when they thought they were voting for Al Gore, on a so-called "butterfly ballot". The Democrats are listed second in the left-hand column; but punching a hole in the second circle actually cast a vote for Buchanan, first listing in the right-hand column. Voters who punched this second hole would have ignored a prominent arrow on the ballot showing which hole was to be punched, because the design of the ballot neglected the effects of [[parallax]] due to the center row of holes being in a different plane from the two columns of printed names, and the ballot being viewed at an oblique angle.<ref>http://jerz.setonhill.edu/design/usability/use-ballot.htm</ref> Since this is actually quite a shallow angle, the parallax effect would not have been as severe as compared with the image on the right.

The Palm Beach Post's review of the discarded ballots showed that 5,330 votes were cast for the presumably rare cross-party combination of Gore and Buchanan, compared with only 1,631 for the equivalent cross-party combination of Bush and Buchanan. In response, others point out that the ballot was designed by a Democrat, [[Theresa LePore]] (who had changed her registration from Republican to Democrat, according to her, because the county had historically chosen Democrats for her position){{citation needed}}, and approved by representatives of both major parties. But neither of these responses go to the issue of whether the ballot may have inadvertently cost Gore the election.

Buchanan said on ''[[The Today Show]]'', [[November 9]], [[2000]]:
:When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night ... it's very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore.
Although Bush spokesman [[Ari Fleischer]] said on [[November 9]], [[2000]], "Palm Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold and that's why Pat Buchanan received 3,407 votes there", Buchanan's Florida coordinator, [[Jim McConnell]], responded, "That's nonsense", and [[Jim Cunningham]], chairman of the executive committee of Palm Beach County's Reform Party, responded, "I don't think so. Not from where I'm sitting and what I'm looking at." Cunningham estimated the number of Buchanan supporters in Palm Beach County to be between 400 and 500. Asked how many votes he would guess Buchanan legitimately received in Palm Beach County, he said, "I think 1,000 would be generous. Do I believe that these people inadvertently cast their votes for Pat Buchanan? Yes, I do. We have to believe that based on the vote totals elsewhere."

=== The Florida Ballot Project recounts===
The [http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/about/index.asp National Opinion Research Center] at the [[University of Chicago]], sponsored by a consortium of major United States news organizations, conducted a [http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review] of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both ''undervotes'' and ''overvotes'', with the main research aim being to report how different ballot layouts correlate with voter mistakes. The total number of undervotes and overvotes in Florida amounted to 3% of all votes cast in the state. The findings of the review were reported by the media during the week after [[November 12]], [[2001]].

The NORC study was not primarily intended as a determination of which candidate "really won". Analysis of the results found that different standards for the hand-counting of machine-uncountable ballots would lead to differing results. The results according to the various standards were reported in the newspapers which funded the recount, such as ''[[The Miami Herald]]'' <ref>[[Special:Booksources/ISBN 0-312-28452-7|'''The Miami Herald Report: Democracy Held Hostage''']]</ref> and the ''[[Washington Post]].'' <ref>http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000'''<br />(outcome of one particular study; not representative of all studies)
|-
! Review Method
! Winner
|-
| colspan="2" | '''Review of All Ballots Statewide''' (never undertaken)
|-
| Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey
| Gore&nbsp;by&nbsp;171
|-
| Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots
| Gore&nbsp;by&nbsp;115
|-
| Any dimples or optical mark
| Gore&nbsp;by&nbsp;107
|-
| One corner of chad detached or optical mark
| Gore&nbsp;by&nbsp;60
|-
| colspan="2" | '''Review of Limited Sets of Ballots''' (initiated but not completed)
|-
| Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties
| Bush&nbsp;by&nbsp;225
|-
| Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide
| Bush&nbsp;by&nbsp;430
|-
| Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes
| Bush&nbsp;by&nbsp;493
|-
| colspan="2" | '''Unofficial recount result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount'''
|-
| [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/08/president.election/index.html CNN] count
| Bush&nbsp;by&nbsp;154
|-
| colspan="2" | '''Certified Result''' (official final count)
|-
| Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only
| Bush&nbsp;by&nbsp;537
|}

=== Response to the problems ===
====Electronic voting====
Since the Presidential Election was so close and hotly contested in Florida, the United States Government and state governments pushed for [[election reform]] to be prepared by the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 United States Presidential Election]]. Many of Florida's year 2000 election night problems stemmed from voting machine issues like rejected ballots, "[[hanging chad]]", and the possibly confusing "butterfly ballot". An opportunistic solution to these problems was assumed to be the installation of modern [[electronic voting]] machines.
Since the Presidential Election was so close and hotly contested in Florida, the United States Government and state governments pushed for [[election reform]] to be prepared by the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 United States Presidential Election]]. Many of Florida's year 2000 election night problems stemmed from voting machine issues like rejected ballots, "[[hanging chad]]", and the possibly confusing "butterfly ballot". An opportunistic solution to these problems was assumed to be the installation of modern [[electronic voting]] machines.


Line 366: Line 143:
* [http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/ The Constitution Project - Election Reform Initiative]
* [http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/ The Constitution Project - Election Reform Initiative]


====Exit polling and declaration of vote winners====
===Exit polling and declaration of vote winners===
The [[Voter News Service]]'s reputation was badly tarnished by its treatment of Florida's presidential vote in 2000. Calling the state as a win for Gore 12 minutes before polls closed in the far western part of the state broke its own guidelines. More seriously, inconsistent polling results caused the VNS to change its call twice, first from Gore to Bush, and then to "too close to call". An attempt by VNS to use computer tallying during the 2002 congressional election was a failure, and the VNS disbanded.
The [[Voter News Service]]'s reputation was badly tarnished by its treatment of Florida's presidential vote in 2000. Calling the state as a win for Gore 12 minutes before polls closed in the far western part of the state broke its own guidelines. More seriously, inconsistent polling results caused the VNS to change its call twice, first from Gore to Bush, and then to "too close to call". An attempt by VNS to use computer tallying during the 2002 congressional election was a failure, and the VNS disbanded.


===More consequences===
== Media post-electoral studies/recounts ==
After the election, ''[[USA Today]]'', ''[[The Miami Herald]]'', and [[Knight Ridder]] commissioned accounting firm [[BDO Seidman]] to count undervotes, that is, ballots which did not register any vote when counted by machine. BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today , show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm</ref> Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. The standards considered by BDO Seidman were:

* Lenient standard. Any alteration in a chad, ranging from a dimple to a full punch, counts as a vote. By this standard, Bush won by 1,665 votes.
* Palm Beach standard. A dimple is counted as a vote if other races on the same ballot show dimples as well. By this standard, Bush won by 884 votes.
* Two-corner standard. A chad with two or more corners removed is counted as a vote. This is the most common standard in use. By this standard, Bush won by 363 votes.
* Strict standard. Only a fully removed chad counts as a vote. By this standard, Gore won by 3 votes.

The study remarks that because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard. It also remarks that there are variations between examiners, and that election officials often did not provide the same number of undervotes as were counted on Election Day. Furthermore, the study did not consider overvotes, ballots which registered more than one vote when counted by machine.

The study also found that undervotes break down into two distinct types, those coming from punch-card using counties, and those coming from optical-scan using counties. Undervotes from punch-card using counties give new votes to candidates in roughly the same proportion as the county's official vote. Furthermore, the number of undervotes correlates with how well the punch-card machines are maintained, and not with factors such as race or socioeconomic status. Undervotes from optical-scan using counties, however, correlate with Democratic votes more than Republican votes. Optical-scan counties were the only places in the study where Gore gained more votes than Bush, 1,036 to 775.

A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the [[Tampa Tribune]], and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm</ref> However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request.

According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the [[University of California, Irvine]], who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to "vote every page". Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.

Including overvotes in the above totals for undervotes gives different margins of victory:

* Lenient standard. Gore by 332 votes.
* Palm Beach standard. Gore by 242 votes.
* Two-corner standard. Bush by 407 votes.
* Strict standard. Bush by 152 votes.

[[Image:nytimes.svg|706px|left|thumb|none|Diagrams from ''[[The New York Times]]'' supporting its claim that a full state-wide recount under every scenario would have gone to Gore.]]

== Consequences ==
In the aftermath of the election, the [[Help America Vote Act]] (HAVA) was passed to help states upgrade their election technology in the hopes of preventing similar problems in future elections. Ironically, the electronic voting systems which many states purchased in order to comply with HAVA actually caused problems in the following presidential election of 2004.
In the aftermath of the election, the [[Help America Vote Act]] (HAVA) was passed to help states upgrade their election technology in the hopes of preventing similar problems in future elections. Ironically, the electronic voting systems which many states purchased in order to comply with HAVA actually caused problems in the following presidential election of 2004.


Line 400: Line 152:


== See also ==
== See also ==
* [[Canada and the 2000 United States presidential election]]
*[[United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results]]
*[[Canada and the 2000 United States presidential election]]
*[[United States Senate election, 2000]]
*[[United States Senate election, 2000]]
*[[George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000]]
*[[George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000]]

Revision as of 00:26, 2 December 2006

Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Cheney, Blue denotes those won by Gore/Lieberman. Numbers indicate electoral votes made by each state.

The United States presidential election of 2000 was one of the closest and most controversial Presidential elections in United States history. On election night, November 7, the media prematurely declared a winner twice based on exit polls and faulty data[1] before finally deciding that the Florida race was too close to call. It would turn out to be a month before the election was finally certified after numerous court challenges and recounts. Republican candidate George W. Bush was awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes after the last recount showed him having won by a razor-thin margin of 537 votes, thereby defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore despite Gore having won the popular vote. As well as being extremely close, the election was highly controversial for a number of reasons.

This election marked the third time in United States history that a candidate had definitively won the Electoral College and thus the Presidency without winning a plurality of the popular vote. (This also happened in the elections of 1876 and 1888.)

Nominations

Democratic Party nomination

Under the provisions of the 22nd amendment, incumbent President Bill Clinton was not allowed to run for a third term. Numerous candidates for the Democratic nomination tested the waters, but only two serious candidates entered the contest, Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee and former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey.

Gore had a strong base as the incumbent Vice President; Bradley received some endorsements but was not the candidate of a major faction or coalition of blocs. Running an insurgency campaign, Bradley positioned himself as the alternative to Gore, who was a founding member of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. While fellow basketball star Michael Jordan campaigned for him in the early primary states, Bradley announced his intention to campaign "in a different way" by conducting a positive campaign of "big ideas." He made the spending of the record-breaking budget surplus on a variety of social welfare programs to help the poor and the middle-class one of his central issues, along with campaign finance reform and gun control.

Bradley was easily defeated by Gore in the primaries, due in large part to the support given to Gore by the Democratic Party establishment and Bradley's poor showing in the Iowa caucus, where Gore successfully painted the aloof autumn Bradley as being indifferent to the plight of the farmers in rural America. The closest Bradley came to a victory was his 50–46 loss to Gore in the New Hampshire primary.

None of Bradley's delegates were allowed to vote for him so Gore won unanimously. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was nominated for Vice President by voice vote.

Republican Party nomination

  • Republican candidates
    • Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, former Governor of Tennessee, former Secretary of Education
    • Gary Bauer of Kentucky, J.D., former Undersecretary of Education, founder of the Family Research Council
    • George W. Bush of Texas, current Governor
    • Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, former Secretary of Transportation, former Secretary of Labor
    • Steve Forbes of New York, President and CEO of Forbes Inc., no prior public office
    • Orrin Hatch of Utah, sitting U.S. Senator
    • John Kasich of Ohio, sitting U.S. Representative for the 12th Congressional District of Ohio and Chairman of the House Budget Committee
    • Alan Keyes of Maryland, Ph.D., former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council
    • John McCain of Arizona, sitting U.S. Senator
    • Dan Quayle of Indiana, former U.S. Vice President
    • Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire, sitting U.S. Senator. Smith dropped out of the Republican primary, denounced the Republican party, and sought nomination as a U.S. Taxpayers Party candidate. He then withdrew his candidacy for the UTP nomination and ran as an independent.

Following Bob Dole's loss to Bill Clinton in the 1996 election, George W. Bush became the frontrunner, acquiring unprecedented funding and a broad base of leadership support. Several aspirants withdrew before the Iowa Caucus, unable to secure funding and endorsements sufficient to remain competitive with Bush. These included Alexander, Dole, Kasich, and Quayle. Steve Forbes, who could self-finance, did compete in the early contests, but did not do as well as he had in 1996. That left Bush, McCain, and Keyes as the only candidates still in the race.

Bush, the governor of the second-largest state in the Union, the son of a former president, and the favored candidate of the Christian right, was portrayed in the media as the establishment candidate. McCain, with the support of many moderate Republicans and Independents, portrayed himself as a crusading insurgent who focused on campaign reform.

McCain won a startling 60-40 victory in the New Hampshire primary and seized the attention of the media. In the South Carolina primary, however, Bush soundly defeated McCain. Some credited Bush's win to the fact that it was the first major primary in which only registered Republicans could vote, which negated McCain's strong advantage among independents. Some McCain supporters blamed it on a campaign of dirty tricks such as push polling, including the false suggestion that McCain fathered an African-American child out of wedlock, perpetrated against McCain by his political enemies. Whatever the real reason, McCain's loss in South Carolina stopped his momentum cold. Although McCain won a few additional primaries, Bush took the majority and, with the support of the party's superdelegates, handily won the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.

The tally was as follows:

McCain finally endorsed Bush, and gave a strong speech at the convention, meanwhile...

Governor Bush asked former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to head up a commission to help select a running mate for him. Bush ultimately asked Cheney himself to be his running mate. Cheney was nominated by voice vote. He changed his voting registration from Texas back to Wyoming in order that he and Governor Bush not both be considered residents of Texas; otherwise, by law, each Texas elector could not vote for both of them.

Reform Party nomination

  • Reform candidates
    • John B. Anderson of Florida, former U.S. Representative for the 16th Congressional District of Illinois, former Independent Presidential candidate
    • Patrick J. Buchanan of Virginia, former speechwriter and Senior Advisor to President Richard Nixon
    • Charles E. Collins of Georgia, former school board chairman from a rural Florida county
    • John Hagelin, of Iowa, Ph.D., past and then-current Natural Law Party candidate
    • Donald Trump of New York, billionaire real estate developer

The nomination went to Pat Buchanan and runningmate Ezola Foster of California, over the objections of party-founder H. Ross Perot and despite a rump convention nomination of John Hagelin by the Perot faction (see Other nominations below). In the end, the Federal Election Commission sided with Buchanan, and that ticket appeared on 49 of 51 possible ballots.

Other nominations

There were four other candidacies on the majority of the 51 ballots (50 states plus the District of Columbia):

  • Harry Browne of Tennessee and Art Olivier of California (Libertarian, 50 ballots)
  • Ralph Nader of Connecticut and Winona LaDuke of Minnesota (Green, 44 ballots)
  • Howard Phillips of Virginia and Curt Frazier of Missouri (Constitution, 41 ballots)
  • John Hagelin of Iowa and Nat Goldhaber of California (Natural Law, 38 ballots)

Also, Joe Schriner of Ohio ran as an Independent write-in candidate, having started his run in Republican primaries.

All known candidates, down to the furthest fringe, are listed at the Politics1 website.

The General Election Campaign

In the campaign, Bush criticized the Clinton administration policy in Somalia, where 18 Americans died in 1993 trying to sort out warring factions, and in the Balkans, where United States peacekeeping troops perform a variety of functions. "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building". Bush said in the second presidential debate.[1]

Ralph Nader was the most successful of third-party candidates, drawing 2.74% of the popular vote. His campaign was marked by a traveling tour of "super-rallies"; large rallies held in sports arenas like Madison Square Garden, with filmmaker Michael Moore as master of ceremonies. After initially ignoring Nader, the Gore campaign made a big publicity pitch to (potential) Nader supporters in the final weeks of the campaign, downplaying Gore's differences with Nader on the issues and claiming that Gore's ideas were more similar to Nader's than Bush's were, noting that Gore had a better chance of winning than Nader. On the other side, the Republican Leadership Council ran pro-Nader ads in a few states in an effort to split the "left" vote.[2] In the aftermath of the campaign, many Gore supporters blamed Nader for drawing enough would-be Gore votes to push Bush over Gore, labeling Nader a "spoiler" candidate.

The sharpest differences among partisan groups came on the topic of morality. Already by 1992, Republicans were much more concerned than Democrats or independents about the alleged moral decay of society, in the form of permissive attitudes toward sex, abortion, gays and lesbians, and secularism. The difference grew larger by 2000, especially if one adds together the moral decay category and the category having to do with corruption and scandals in Washington. Morality was mentioned most frequently by Republicans as the "single most important problem" facing the nation.[3] Therefore during his campaign Bush frequently referred to restoring moral integrity not only to the White House but to the nation as a whole. Gore on the other hand studiously avoided the Clinton scandals, as did Lieberman, even though Lieberman had been the first Democratic senator to denounce Clinton's misbehavior. Gore avoided appearing with Clinton, who was shunted to low visibility appearances in minority areas.

The election

The outcome of the November 7 election was not known for more than a month after the balloting, because of the extended process of counting and then recounting of Florida presidential ballots, which would ultimately decide the election. State results tallied on election night gave 246 electoral votes to Bush and 255 to Gore, with New Mexico (5), Oregon (7), and Florida (25) too close to call at the time. Since 270 electoral votes are required to win, Florida would put either candidate over the top, and the other two states were irrelevant. (Both New Mexico and Oregon were declared in favor of Gore over the next few days, making it 246–267.)

After Florida was decided, Texas Governor George W. Bush became President-elect on December 13, and began forming his transition committee. Bush said he was reaching across party lines to bridge a divided America, stating that "the President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race, and every background."[4]

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, and no senator would co-sponsor these objections. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.

Bush took the oath of office on January 20, 2001.

Results

Vice President Al Gore came in second in the electoral vote, but received 543,816 more popular votes than Bush. Such a close national contest contributed to the controversy of the election. This was the first time since 1888 that a candidate who clearly did not receive a plurality of the popular vote received a majority of the Electoral College (see United States Electoral College, losing the popular vote). (Due to the unusual ballot in Alabama in 1960, it is unclear how much of the popular vote in that state can be attributed to Kennedy and hence whether Kennedy beat Nixon in the popular vote.)

Gore failed to win the popular vote in his home state of Tennessee. Had he won Tennessee, he could have won the election without Florida. Gore was the first major party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972.

Electoral results
Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote Electoral
vote 		Running mate
Count Percentage Vice-presidential candidate Home state Electoral vote
George W. Bush Republican Texas 50,460,110 47.9% 271 Dick Cheney Wyoming 271
Al Gore Democratic Tennessee 51,003,926 48.4% 266 Joe Lieberman Connecticut 266
(abstention) (a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 1 (abstention) (a) (n/a) 1
Ralph Nader Green Connecticut 2,883,105 2.7% 0 Winona LaDuke Minnesota 0
Pat Buchanan Reform Virginia 449,225 0.4% 0 Ezola B. Foster California 0
Harry Browne Libertarian Tennessee 384,516 0.4% 0 Art Olivier California 0
Howard Phillips Constitution Virginia 98,022 0.1% 0 Curtis Frazier Missouri 0
John Hagelin Natural Law/Reform Iowa 83,702 0.1% 0 Nat Goldhaber California 0
Other(b) 54,652 0.1% — Other(b) —
Total 105,417,258 100% 538 538
Needed to win 270 270

Source (Popular Vote): Leip, David. "2000 Presidential Election Results". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved August 7, 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Source (Electoral Vote): 2000 Electoral Vote Totals. Official website of the National Archives. (August 7, 2005).

(a) One faithless elector from the District of Columbia, Barbara Lett-Simmons, abstained from voting in protest of the District's lack of a voting representative in United States Congress. (D.C. has a non-voting delegate to Congress.) She had been expected to vote for Gore/Lieberman.
(b) Candidates receiving less than 0.05% of the total popular vote.

Detailed results by state are also available

Close states

  1. Florida, <0.01%
  2. New Mexico, 0.06%
  3. Wisconsin, 0.22%
  4. Iowa, 0.31%
  5. Oregon, 0.44%
  6. New Hampshire, 1.27%
  7. Minnesota, 2.40%
  8. Missouri, 3.34%
  9. Ohio, 3.51%
  10. Nevada, 3.55%
  11. Tennessee, 3.86%
  12. Pennsylvania, 4.17%

Florida

Article: United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results

Aftermath

Electronic voting

Since the Presidential Election was so close and hotly contested in Florida, the United States Government and state governments pushed for election reform to be prepared by the 2004 United States Presidential Election. Many of Florida's year 2000 election night problems stemmed from voting machine issues like rejected ballots, "hanging chad", and the possibly confusing "butterfly ballot". An opportunistic solution to these problems was assumed to be the installation of modern electronic voting machines.

Electronic voting was initially touted by many as a panacea for the ills faced during the 2000 election. In years following, such machines were questioned for a suspicious lack of a paper trail, less than ideal security standards, low tolerance for software or hardware problems, and being manufactured by companies which had openly supported Republican candidates. The United States Presidential Election of 2000 spurred the debate about election and voting reform, but it did not end it. See Electronic voting: problems.

Exit polling and declaration of vote winners

The Voter News Service's reputation was badly tarnished by its treatment of Florida's presidential vote in 2000. Calling the state as a win for Gore 12 minutes before polls closed in the far western part of the state broke its own guidelines. More seriously, inconsistent polling results caused the VNS to change its call twice, first from Gore to Bush, and then to "too close to call". An attempt by VNS to use computer tallying during the 2002 congressional election was a failure, and the VNS disbanded.

More consequences

In the aftermath of the election, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed to help states upgrade their election technology in the hopes of preventing similar problems in future elections. Ironically, the electronic voting systems which many states purchased in order to comply with HAVA actually caused problems in the following presidential election of 2004.

Democrats blamed third party candidate Ralph Nader for taking the election away from Gore. Nader received some 97,000 votes in Florida. According to the Washington Post, exit polls there showed that "47 percent of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21 percent for Bush," which would have given Gore a margin of some 24,000 votes over Bush.[5] Some Democrats claim that had Nader not run, Gore would have won both New Hampshire and Florida and won the election with 296 electoral votes. (He only needed one of the two to win.) Nader's reputation was still hurt by this perception, and may have hindered his future goals as an activist. Defenders of Nader, including Dan Perkins, argued that the margin in Florida was small enough that Democrats could blame any number of third-party candidates for the defeat, including a "Workers' World Party," which received 1,500 votes. [6]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate". 2000 Debate Transcript. Commission on Presidential Debates. 2004. Retrieved October 21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2000.
  3. ^ [Miller and Klobucar 2003]
  4. ^ http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html
  5. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45950-2000Nov8?language=
  6. ^ http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/11/13/tomo/index.html
  • [2]US election game

References

136 Days. New York: Times Books, 2000

Books

  • Steed, Robert P. (ed.), ed. (2002). The 2000 Presidential Election in the South: Partisanship and Southern Party Systems in the 21st Century. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  • de La Garza, Rodolfo O. (ed.), ed. (2004). Muted Voices: Latinos and the 2000 Elections. ISBN 0-7425-3590-8. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
  • Abramson, Paul R. (2002). Change and Continuity in the 2000 Elections. ISBN 1-56802-740-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Bugliosi, Vincent (2001). The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President. Thunder's Mouth Press. ISBN 1-56025-355-X.
  • Corrado, Anthony (2001). Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations. Chatham House Publishers. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Denton, Robert E., Jr. (2002). The 2000 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective. Praeger.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Dershowitz, Alan M. (2001). Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. ISBN 0-19-514827-4.
  • Dover, E. D. (2002). Missed Opportunity: Gore, Incumbency, and Television in Election 2000. ISBN 0-275-97638-6.
  • Gillman, H. (2001). The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election. ISBN 0-226-29408-0.
  • Jacobson, Arthur J. (2002). The Longest Night: Polemics and Perspectives on Election 2000. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Palast, Greg (2002). The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Pluto Press. ISBN 0-7453-1846-0.
  • Posner, Richard A. (2001). Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution, and the Courts. ISBN 0-691-09073-4.
  • Rakove, Jack N. (2002). The Unfinished Election of 2000. ISBN 0-465-06837-5.
  • Sabato, Larry J. (2001). Overtime! The Election 2000 Thriller. ISBN 0-321-10028-X.
  • Sammon, Bill (2001). At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election. Regnery Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-89526-227-4.

Journal articles

  • Miller, Arthur H. (2003). "The Role of Issues in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 33 (1): 101+. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Wattenberg, Martin P. (1999). "The Democrats' Decline in the House during the Clinton Presidency: An Analysis of Partisan Swings". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 29.
  • Wattier, Mark J. (2004). "The Clinton Factor: The Effects of Clinton's Personal Image in 2000 Presidential Primaries and in the General Election". White House Studies. 4.

Papers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=91496700"