This is not supposed to be a trick question, and it has only one correct answer. The question is about ballots cast in November of 2000, not electoral votes. The question is not about what votes should have been counted or might have been counted. The question is about the votes actually tabulated and certified by the states.
2007-07-12 07:48:24 · 15 answers · asked by rollo_tomassi423 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
it was al gore by like 1 million
2007-07-12 07:50:48 · answer #1 · answered by deezNutz 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Al Gore had the most votes with 50,455,156
G.W. Bush had the next most with 50,992,335
Others received 3,949,150
Total votes: 105,396,641
It was the third time in American history that a candidate won the vote in the Electoral College without receiving a plurality of the popular vote; it also happened in the elections of 1876 and 1888.
--
Alex
2007-07-12 08:02:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote
2007-07-12 07:50:57 · answer #3 · answered by dellptn 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, Al Gore (rythm) received 51,003,926 votes; Geo. Bush 50,460,110. Gore received 266 electoral votes; Bush 271. Just like Clinton, Bush became a "minority" President; the loser had more votes. And, of course, the Supreme Court made the final decision.
With the exception of the Supreme Court, this has happened several times in our history and will, doubtlessly, happen again.
2007-07-12 08:00:53 · answer #4 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You have to play by the rules the rules were and are you have to win a majority of the Electoral College. Bush clearly did that.
If you want to change history then Nixon got more popular votes than Kennedy. He did not challenge the results because he thought it would be detrimental to the country. Imagine that, Nixon put the country above his own ambitions. Shocking, just shocking!!!
2007-07-12 09:00:45 · answer #5 · answered by barry c 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Gore received the majority of the popular votes.
2007-07-12 07:54:24 · answer #6 · answered by R H 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, the president isn't elected by popular vote but by electoral, so votes in more populous states, in a sense 'don't count." A large majority in CA, for instance, doesn't do any more for you than a bare majority. A victory in a state with high voter turnout doesn't get you any more than a victory in a state with the same electoral votes, but much lower turnout.
2007-07-12 08:08:03 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Al Gore
2007-07-12 07:54:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Al Gore
2007-07-12 07:51:05 · answer #9 · answered by krafto8 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
provided that the final election is a finished sham to cover away the electoral college equipment, No, I wouldnt of replaced my vote. whether I did, it wouldnt of replaced something as a results of fact A) California is a extensive Liberal state and it does not of mattered B) i'm not a delegate interior the Electoral college, so all my vote truly does is supply that delagate an theory of a thank you to vote...which they are in a position to forget approximately in the event that they choose to.
2016-10-21 00:43:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be great if we didn't have a republic where the votes of the states are on an even keel. Why did the democrats go to court to block the military absentee votes?
2007-07-12 07:54:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋