"The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court"

[RedHeadGal]

The SCOTUS intervened in that election, and that's how it ended, regardless of how any subsequent recounts may or may not have turned out.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex- sadly for you, Al Gore would have won under most recounting procedures. Sadly for Al Gore, the method he proposed wasn't one of those procedures that would have given him the win.

Liberal vs. conservative counting procedures. Here's a novel one......one person, one vote. I don't believe I heard of ONE recounting of ballots that would have given Gore the lead in Florida (thank heavens!).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Dude, you're killing me. Perhaps you should start reading more than just Daily Kos.

NORC Florida Ballots Project Gore 4 out of 7 scenarios (estimated because all of Gore's win scenarios were full statewide recounts which were never undertaken. In the limited recount scenarios, Bush was 3 out of 3 interpretation scenarios).
USA Today Study Bush 3 out of 4 scenarios. Gore only wins in the most liberal interpretation scenario which, as you already mentioned, wasn't the interpretation scenario he proposed.

If you believe the raw data of those studies means Al Gore would have won under "most recounting procedures" then I probably have nothing else to say. To continue would be like arguing the color of the sky with someone that insists it is plaid.

Dude, you're killing me. The NORC determined that under "most" recount methods, Gore would have won. As you noted, it was 4 out of 7 (i.e., most). The limited recount scenarios were the 3 included in the tally of 7 that Bush would have won. The NORC study was far more comprehensive than the USA Today study, was conducted after the USA Today study and came to different conclusions than the USA Today study.

Also ironic is that the method fought for by Bush would have resulted in Gore winning.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heard this on CBS news again last night. It always kind of ticks me off when I hear it, because it is completely untrue. Al Gore would not have won under any but the most liberal (small "l") set of counting practices.

Even if he had a shot at winning, the Supreme Court did not "decide" the election. They stopped the recount, which had the effect of allowing President Bush to claim victory, but enough voters in enough states gave him enough Electors to claim the Presidency. The Supreme Court did not deliberate, come out of a room, and "pick" a candidate.

Typical of the misinformed crap coming from the media these days.

I think the thing that many people who say that overlook is that the SCOTUS overruled the decision of the highest court in Florida. So when they bitterly tell you they are mad that the SCOTUS decided the election, what they are saying is they wish the Florida Supreme Court had decided the election. That's what the result would have been had SCOTUS not taken the case up.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

The SCOTUS intervened in that election, and that's how it ended, regardless of how any subsequent recounts may or may not have turned out.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Yes, they did intervene, in a manner of speaking (one could make the argument that it was actually the Florida Supreme Court who intervened, and SCOTUS put a stop to it.)

Do you agree that SCOTUS decided the election?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Dude, you're killing me. The NORC determined that under "most" recount methods, Gore would have won. As you noted, it was 4 out of 7 (i.e., most). The limited recount scenarios were the 3 included in the tally of 7 that Bush would have won. The NORC study was far more comprehensive than the USA Today study, was conducted after the USA Today study and came to different conclusions than the USA Today study.

Also ironic is that the method fought for by Bush would have resulted in Gore winning.

Ok. According to NORC, by a count of 4 to 3, Gore would have won by the "most" recount methods. All recount methods are not created equal. The 4 in question required a very generous counting method.

Your last statement demonstrates why it's folly to pick your method after the fact, and further underlies why the statement "SCOTUS picked the President" is totally false.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think the thing that many people who say that overlook is that the SCOTUS overruled the decision of the highest court in Florida. So when they bitterly tell you they are mad that the SCOTUS decided the election, what they are saying is the wish the Florida Supreme Court had decided the election. That's what the result would have been had SCOTUS not taken the case up.

You beat me by one minute. I just said the same thing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think the think that many people who say that overlook is that the SCOTUS overruled the decision of the highest court in Florida. So when they bitterly tell you they are mad that the SCOTUS decided the election, what they are saying is the wish the Florida Supreme Court had decided the election. That's what the result would have been had SCOTUS not taken the case up.

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.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Yes, they did intervene, in a manner of speaking (one could make the argument that it was actually the Florida Supreme Court who intervened, and SCOTUS put a stop to it.)

Do you agree that SCOTUS decided the election?

I don't agree that they "decided the election." I do, however, think they determined the outcome.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I don't agree that they "decided the election." I do, however, think they determined the outcome.

Wow, that's incredibly nuanced.

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

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ok. According to NORC, by a count of 4 to 3, Gore would have won by the "most" recount methods. All recount methods are not created equal. The 4 in question required a very generous counting method.

Your last statement demonstrates why it's folly to pick your method after the fact, and further underlies why the statement "SCOTUS picked the President" is totally false.



You beat me by one minute. I just said the same thing.

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.

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.