extended response history question?

Question

compare the presidential election of 2000.

and the presidentail election of the year 1800.

Answer 1

Actually a more apt comparison is the 'Stolen Election' of 1876. A close race between a Democrat no one could warm up to and a Republican whose election was uncertain due to the corruption of the previous President. Then as Now no one can plan to steal an election but one can take advantage of voting irregularities which is what Republicans did when word came in that the count was questionable in three states one of which was Florida (the other two were Oregon and Louisiana). Eventually the decision was handed to a panel that ruled in favor of Republican Rutherford Hayes. Much as with the 2000 election no one was gonna risk war to support Samuel Tilden.

The election of 1800 and the 1824 election were much more alike in that the decision was left to the House of Reporesenatives.

Peace....

Answer 2

~In 1800 a real president was elected. However, due to the fact that Americans, then and now, do not vote directly for President, and due to the fact that Democratic-Republican Party strategists weren't too bright and couldn't follow their own game plan, the election itself produced no winner and only the intervention of Alexander Hamilton carried the day for Jefferson. Hamilton's involvement in part led to Aaron Burr killing Hamilton a few years later.

The 2000 election is similar in that once again a candidate who did not receive a majority of the votes ended up in the White House through the efforts of his political cronies. The difference is, in 1800 a man with integrity, character, ability and a brain got the job, whereas in 2000 we were saddled with Jefferson's exact antithesis, Georgie the Younger. The saddest difference is, dueling has been outlawed and Al Gore was not able to challenge Georgie to a duel. Gore would almost certainly win that one, especially if Dick Chaney served as Georgie's second.