"The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court"

[JohnnyLingo]

If every single vote was recounted in Florida, Gore would have won the election

Has someone done that?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Has someone done that?

Yes.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes.

Hm.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Wow, that's incredibly nuanced.

To me, that's 99% the same thing.

yes, I agree it's nuanced (I'm a nuanced gal, apparently. . .). My point is that "decided the election" makes it sounds like the justices went around back and decided who they wanted the victor to be (and that's how Tex seems to descibe what his problem here is).

But I also think that their intervention was wrong. And they were keenly aware of the outcome determinative nature of what they were doing. And that outcome was the end of recounts and the end of Gore's challenges. That decision had the effect of crowning Dubya as victor. The election factored in certainly, but that decision was what put him in the White House. I don't really see this as other than factual, apart from my editorial comment about the inappropriateness of their intervention.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

yes, I agree it's nuanced (I'm a nuanced gal, apparently. . .). My point is that "decided the election" makes it sounds like the justices went around back and decided who they wanted the victor to be (and that's how Tex seems to descibe what his problem here is).

But I also think that their intervention was wrong. And they were keenly aware of the outcome determinative nature of what they were doing. And that outcome was the end of recounts and the end of Gore's challenges. That decision had the effect of crowning Dubya as victor. The election factored in certainly, but that decision was what put him in the White House. I don't really see this as other than factual, apart from my editorial comment about the inappropriateness of their intervention.

Fair enough. Though the action of stopping the recounts was not made in a vacuum. The justices knew what the outcome would be.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, it isn't totally false.

You note a recount of the entire state's votes would have been "very generous." Why? If every single vote was recounted in Florida, Gore would have won the election. In other words, the truest reflection of every single vote in Florida would have been a Gore victory. The legal arguments presented by both Gore and Bush focused on limited recounts (which, presumably, would have resulted in a more accurate count of the votes in those areas). To say that it makes sense to have an accurate count in some areas but not in others is an odd position to take, I think.

We're going to get into the tall grass here with this, but that seems to be where you're determined to take it.

This "every vote needs to be recounted" argument is specious. First, every vote WAS recounted, more than once, if memory serves. You are talking about a specific type of statewide recount with parameters that exceed any that anyone was reasonably talking about using. Second, such a statewide recount is not mandated (nor allowed, I believe) by Florida election law, which played into the SCOTUS decision. This is far from the "truest" reflection of voter intent. The Gore approach, and yours apparently, is to count as many times and in as many different ways as you can, with the hope that SOMEWHERE along the way enough votes get picked up. "Didn't get enough? Well count them again!"

Frequently lost in this discussion is the fact that there were actually two rulings that came out of the Court: one 7-2, and one 5-4. It was the 7-2 ruling that actually found the recount procedure to be unconstitutional--certainly within the Court's jurisdiction to decide. The second (and more controversial) decision, was to end ALL recounts, present and future.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The case was the odd result of intense political pressure at the state and federal level, media scrutiny, and time sensitivity. I am not one who claims Gore "won" the election. He didn't. There was a process established, and under that process, he lost. He could have won under a different process, and whether other processes should have been the process used is valid for debate. But it isn't a debate that results in a claim that Bush wasn't elected president. It may be a debate that results in an understanding of how things can better be handled in the future.

Fine.

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

yes, I agree it's nuanced (I'm a nuanced gal, apparently. . .). My point is that "decided the election" makes it sounds like the justices went around back and decided who they wanted the victor to be (and that's how Tex seems to descibe what his problem here is).

But I also think that their intervention was wrong. And they were keenly aware of the outcome determinative nature of what they were doing. And that outcome was the end of recounts and the end of Gore's challenges. That decision had the effect of crowning Dubya as victor. The election factored in certainly, but that decision was what put him in the White House. I don't really see this as other than factual, apart from my editorial comment about the inappropriateness of their intervention.

This is akin to saying that a game was won on a last minute shot, when in reality it was won by the sum of all points scored during the game. Just because the SCOTUS ruling resulted in a Bush presidency does not mean SCOTUS "determined the outcome," to use your phrase. In fact, the 4-county recount requested by Gore then underway would have STILL resulted in a Bush presidency.

The most correct way to say it is, "The Supreme Court accelerated Bush's assumption of the presidency after it was determined he won the election."

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If every single vote was recounted in Florida, Gore would have won the election.

How could the determination for which candidate a ballot was cast in all the ballots that had two holes that had been punched?

Bottom line is that the Supreme Court would never have been a part of the mess if Gore had just taken his loss like a man.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The courts had to intervene in the issue. It was a disaster. But it should have been the state court and not the federal court (or, alternatively, the federal court should have at least articulated a reason for being involved). The Supreme Court had no real basis for involvement. They haven't used that decision as precedent (and indeed have indicated it shouldn't be used as precedent). Most of the justices have acknowledged it was a bad opinion that resulted from a compromise at the 11th hour to keep Kennedy on board. It makes no sense, and has no foundation in law.

The Supreme Court DID decide the election. Depending on the method used for a recount, the election results could have changed. The Court required that a certain method be used. I think that much is clear.

I am merely pointing out that the true objection is to the result rather than to judicial interference. If it is, as you say, a decision resulting from compromise and bereft of foundation in law then perhaps it will have precedential value one day. Just look at Roe. :-)

[Detroitdad]

Nobody knows for sure who won. It was amazingly close there by any stretch, and our anachronistic system failed dramatically to deliver a clear cut winner. The fact that there were 7 different styles of recounts proves illustrates the problem.
I think we can all agree that we got a very disappointing president out of it (some would say shitty). People feel bitter when there is no clear way to determine whether they go hosed. Maybe they did or maybe they did not but it is a legitimate question.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

How could the determination for which candidate a ballot was cast in all the ballots that had two holes that had been punched?

Bottom line is that the Supreme Court would never have been a part of the mess if Gore had just taken his loss like a man.

Those were called "overvotes" and the NORC modeled different ways of counting/ignoring them too.

There was absolutely no clear way to say that Gore lost prior to the Supreme Court's involvement. I could just as easily say that the Supreme Court involvement was because Bush wouldn't take his loss like a man. Of course, neither my statement nor yours would be true.