Did Bush even win the election in 2000?

Question

The peoples votes decided that he lost and gore won, if he had been elected we would be in much better shape and we wouldnt have a multi billion daollar deficit.



P.S. im 13 years old so Bin Lyin.... bring it on.

Answer 1

ps.. you have a lot of learning left to do. I would suggest taking a WHOLE LOT of history classes because you really are uneducated even for a 13 year old

Answer 2

The president is decided by electoral college not popular vote. In fact I believe that Bush is the 4th or 5th president that got in with electoral and not popular so it is not uncommon in American history. Every recount in Florida had Gore behind. Gore never got ahead in the recounts so Bush did win, the supreme court case was mainly to stop the recounts so a president could be named because the country was in limbo for a long time after that vote.

The electoral college is how the constitution says the president is elected. This is nothing new and people yelling popular vote are spitting on it in my opinion. The 2000 election really painted the Dems as sore losers and their actions today keep that image alive.

If you are 13 I would suggest reading it. Doesn't take long and it will give you a grasp of how politics work and why certain things happen.

Answer 3

I would make a strong claim that the Republicans stole both elections, 2000 in Florida (the hanging chad thingie) and the rejection of a manual recount - In this case I believe that a group of newspapers actually recounted the ballots using the freedom of information act to get access to them and found that Gore won Florida by a small margin. In 2004 the irregularities in Ohio the key state that year were unreal. Robert Kennedy published an amazingly detailed and documented account of the problems in Ohio in Rolling Stone ? as I recall published mid 2006. While the Florida issues were probably not so much the result of illegal actions but more legal maneuvers. The case of Ohio in 2004 unquestionably shows evidence of illegal activities designed to ensure a Bush victory. By now we should be used to the idea that with the Republicans the ends justify the means. It is simply characteristic of their modus operandi from Nixon and Watergate thru Reagan and Iran Contra - and Now the Bush fiasco. The only possible exception is in fact W's father Bush 41 - while I had no respect for his policies, I do think he maintained respect for the office of President, and a maturity of judgement that did not allow 'ends justifying the means' behavior. Or maybe he just did not get caught.

Answer 4

Yes, I believe he legitimately won the election for 2 reasons: 1. The votes were counted, and recounted. After that, it seemed Gore & Co were simply trying to recount and recount selected votes in an attempt to manufacture votes from ballots that had to be disqualified. In other words, the votes were to keep being counted by divining the intention of the voter, until he won. 2. A consortium of media enterprises, including the NY times, went in afterwards and spent months counting every vote. By virtually every objective standard, Bush still won. Only in the narrowest of circumstances could Gore have won. I've linked to the article regarding this. By the way, the uproar of the Butterfly Ballot was a con job. I've linked to a picture of it. It's very simple to understand and not confusing at all. In California, probably 20 years of my voting was done on just this type of ballot. Another answerer said it was "shameful and disqusting." Far from it, it was a shining example of how to handle a contested election. In many countries around the world, violence would be the result. Instead it was handled by the courts, and everyone abided by the results. Democracy and the rule of law won big time in the 2000 election. And in perhaps the finest piece of democracy in action, was the protest by the outraged conservatives when ballot counters took some ballots behind closed doors. The protestors were beating on the door yelling "Let us in. Let us in!" Whatever shenanigans those counters were up to had to be stopped, and security had to come rescue them. Supposedly it was something about looking at "training" ballots, but I'm not sure.

Answer 5

Nope. He didn't win the election. In all actuality, he lost the election, but was appointed as the President by the Supreme Court of the United States, which coincedentally, was stock full of Gerry Ford's (1), daddy's (2), and Ronnie Ray Gun's (4) appointees.

At the time, the makeup of the Court was: (and they were appointed by)

Chief Justice William Rhenquist - Reagan
Associate Justice John Paul Stevens - Ford
Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia - Reagan
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy - Reagan
Associate Justice David Souder - GHW Bush
Associate Justice Clarence Thonas - GHW Bush
Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg - Clinton
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer - Clinton

Answer 6

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Gore was found violating Bush's Equal Protection clause under the law because of the inconsistent recounts

Bush legally won the election

Answer 7

Well no he didn't lose. Once a candidate concedes then the other person wins. Gore conceded. Do you know for a fact we would not have the deficit? Even if 9/11 never happened I am sure the democrats would have found a way to spend the tax dollar. So you can't say that we would not.

Answer 8

Actually, Al Gore wanted to have the military vote (which was a majority for Bush) not counted, so no, Gore didn't win.

Answer 9

Yes he won because of a court ruling. But no he didn't really win. He had a state supreme court justice who was a republican make the decision and she actually ran for either senate or congress this past election and lost. That is impressive that you know this much about politics at your age. Keep following the politics a lot of people my age don't and their in their 20's Try to get as many young people to get intrested in politics cause it does matter to everyone even people who can't vote.

Answer 10

Gore won the election but Bush was appointed president by the supreme court.

Answer 11

Look 6 years later and they can't get over the fact, the country did not like the direction the democrat party took it! Why do you think we ended up with a Repblican controlled house after 40 years of Democrat rule, and then took over the Senate 2 years later. Their scandals, and corruption!