2007-02-01 09:08:52 · 26 answers · asked by Jacks036 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I've changed my mind.
I believe Bush actually did win by votes.
Which makes sense.
Look at the shambles our country is in, thanks to all the Republican Votes!
They got what they deserved....and now the republican party is shredding apart quicker than the eye can see.
.
2007-02-01 09:56:03 · answer #1 · answered by Jake 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, he did not. The vote in Florida in 2000 was thoroughly reviewed after the election...at the demand of the Democrats...and the allegations of voter fraud, intimidation, etc. simply did not pan out.
In terms of Ohio, that is where I live. The allegations of voter fraud, voter intimidation, etc. centered on Cuyahoga County. Again, the allegations simply did not pan out.
Think about it for a moment. If there was anything to this, with all the investigations, ordered at the behest of the Democrats, don't you think something would have come out? Particularly in the current partisan climate!
This is nothing more than a red herring, essentially designed to discredit Bush and coerce an unknowing public into voting for Democratic candidates.
As to the answerer above who indicates that the constitution was not followed in 2000 because it was decided in the courts, the Supreme Court did not rule on the election results. The Supreme Court ruled that the selective recount requested by the Gore Campaign and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, was unconstitutional. They indicated that if you want to do a recount, you cannot only do so in the areas where Gore is strong.
If Gore really believed that he won, then why did he not agree to a recount of the entire state. Maybe because he and his advisers knew that a recount, like the one that was ultimately done by the media, would and did show Bush the winner
2007-02-01 17:28:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Did not, either time. In Florida there is plenty of evidence that the Democrat controlled election districts with hanging chads, were the scene of just the opposite. The hanging chads indicate both in physical evidence and statistical evidence that someone tried to prepunch the ballots for Gore. And that this prepunching was done in a hurry, as multiple ballots were stuffed into the voting machines a one time resulting in the hanging chads.
The conclusive part of this is that most of the ballots with hanging chads were also punched for another canidate. So that if those with hanging chads were thrown out it still took votes away from Bush.
2007-02-01 17:27:51 · answer #3 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
My opinion is that when there is a discrepancy in the election process that cast doubt as to the legal winner, then this should be investigated to the full extent of the government. This should be applied equally to all elected officials regardless of party. In my opinion by Bush and his people blocking the counting of votes in Fla. I would think you could assume that the 2000 election was stolen.
2007-02-01 17:14:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Once and for all. The Lib's have crunched the numbers. Every which way to Kansas. And the numbers don't lie. But they haven't told you that. They just put out the charge. And let that be the record. No Facts to back it up. Like their Policies. They don't want you to look at the Facts. Just believe what they say!
2007-02-01 17:14:54 · answer #5 · answered by Goggles 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The first one, in 2000 OH yea. In 2004, he had to have some kind of help to have won that.
This is from someone who voted for him in 2000. I learned better.
2007-02-01 17:42:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hello, was he not elected for two terms? The people (at least the smart ones) voted him in. It's to late for a recount! How come very time the liberals don't win they want to whine?
2007-02-01 17:24:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Supreme Court said he did not steal the presidency.
Let's accept that & move on.
2007-02-01 17:24:37 · answer #8 · answered by Bad M 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Once and for all? I'll bet it'll be asked again by someone else, within a week.
Let go of it already, ok? There were no 'stolen' elections, either in 2000 or 2004.
2007-02-01 17:16:10 · answer #9 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
According to the constitution, if there is a discrepancy in who won the election, it is the place of the US CONGRESS to decide the winner, not the supreme court.
So he was not elected per the regulations of the constitution.
You can call that stolen if you want.
This can be found in Ammendment 12 of the constitution.
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
2007-02-01 17:19:49 · answer #10 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋