2007-07-27 05:01:30 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The Supreme Court which put an end to the recount in Florida.
2007-07-27 05:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by John R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supreme Courts decision that the 14th amendment to the constitution could violate equal protection unter the law.
Allow people of Florida to revote then you have to allow people in this state vote again,
How do you fairly and uniformally count all the votes and decide what counts and doesn'r count as a vote
Don't get rid of the electoral college and secondly it wont happen(only and amendment to the constitution can do this and small states won't go with it)
Why you ask, U.S. Elections then will come down to only a handful of states: California, Illinois, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania. The reason being is they have large cities and high populations.
Who cares what the people of Deleware want there are more votes in the city of Chicago than that whole state
2007-07-27 14:56:25 · answer #2 · answered by Eric S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Katherine Harris affected the outcome,before the election, she was Secretary of State of the state of Florida.Harris presided over the contested 2000 U.S. Presidental Election in Florida. There were allegations of conflict of interest and partisan, unethical behavior by Harris during the 2000 campaign. Harris had been named as Bush's Florida campaign co-chair the year before.
Click on source, then go to 2000 U.S. Presidental Election
Read about what Harris and Choicepoint, a firm that acts as a private intelligence service for government and industry, did, it's unbelieveable that can happen in America.
2007-07-27 17:20:54 · answer #3 · answered by Louie O 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One thing no one has mentioned is that when the recount was finally finished (a legally moot issue since the Supreme Court had ruled), it showed that Bush had, in fact, won the popular vote in Florida.
My memory is fuzzy on this second point but I'm thinking that the conflict between the US and Florida Supreme Courts was about how long the recount process could go on as Inauguration Day approached (something about what constituted a "safe harbor").
So, given that Bush would have won the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount anyway, in the final analysis the US Supreme Court's decision is redundant. In other words, Bush would have won under either court's decision. It just would have taken a little longer under the Florida court's approach.
Sorry my answer's not as vitriolic as the others. The truth often turns out that way.
2007-07-27 14:45:10 · answer #4 · answered by Necromancer 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision to end the recount in Florida. It was by far the worst election in history. This country needs to get rid of the Electoral College and go by popular. I voted for Bush in that election, but I agree he should have lost. Unfortunately, the Electoral College said otherwise.
2007-07-27 12:21:00 · answer #5 · answered by kepjr100 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
... the Supreme Court. Given that Bush won by 100 or so votes, where the margin of error was only about 500,000 or so, what else could they do but vote for their favorite and claim that they had the best interests of the nation at heart. Yes, we can blame the Supreme Court for the war in Iraq. It seems that the United States had no ability to resolve a dead heat in Florida, and the complete inability to know what to do allowed the jerks in the Supreme Court to jerk off the entire world.
2007-07-27 14:11:10 · answer #6 · answered by Fred 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
trickery ,chicanery on a grand and heretofore unpresidented scale,telemarketing buses brought north by right-wing christian groups to manipulate and coerce and threathen black democratic voters into non-action at the polls!!threats of jailing for voting as felons or criminals..in some instances where no offense had actually been committed!!rigged vote counting,fraudulent vote counts and omissions!!the republica national committee "challenged" three and one half million black democratic votes which were summarily "voided" even though ,by law,as a sectarian and partisan group the committee is prohibited to challenge the votes of the opposing party by regulation!!!this and other challenges against "white" democratic voters were surreptitiouslessly performed!!a black democratic,"lifelong democratic voter",elderly lady was call by such a "boiler room" operation telling her that she couldn't vote because she was a felon....only problem was that the crime of this 78 year old will not occur until 2009 a.d.!!!not to be too concerned ;but 30,000"dead democratic "lifelong voters voted for george w. bush from the grave and their votes were counted and unchallenged!!still al gore ,as lame as he is, won the popular presidential election inspite of all of these "cheating" and politically disallowable acts!!rupert murdoch informed al gore that the latest poll of his biased and obliquely right-wing "news organization" showed bush the winner!!and al gore is such a "loser" that he conceded on the "say-so" of an enemy against all that he says that he stands for!!DOLT!!!
2007-07-27 14:41:43 · answer #7 · answered by eldoradoreefgold 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The partisan Supreme Court... and the unwillingness of Al Gore to demand an investigation...
2007-07-27 13:54:29 · answer #8 · answered by aspicco 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
people appointed by his dad
2007-07-27 15:16:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋