Shown: posts 1 to 4 of 4. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by sdb on January 19, 2012, at 6:13:47
I am not clear about one thing.
Was Bush finally elected by voters or transferred of power by the decision of a judge?
Posted by 10derheart on January 20, 2012, at 12:29:02
In reply to Bush, finally elected by voters or ..., posted by sdb on January 19, 2012, at 6:13:47
I'm guessing you are asking about the election 12 years ago...2000?
If so, the opponent's campaign, Sen Al Gore, brought a suit in federal court to compel a manual recount of the votes in the State of Florida as this would determine who received the most electoral votes and therefore, who won the election.
It was decided by the Supreme Court, not 'a judge,' in GWB's favor in the sense they did not think the votes needed to be recounted once again. He received 271 total electoral votes and Sen Gore received 266.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
I wouldn't call it a "transfer of power." It was an extremely important judicial decision, quite controversial of course, which according the the process we have in the U.S., ended the dispute over who won in Florida. I think people viscerally reacted more to other issues such as alleged voter fraud, outrage at the logistical problems with the ballots in Florida and who that might have benefited, and mostly, the fact GWB did not win the popular vote but *did* win the electoral vote, which legally elects you president. They usually go hand in hand but didn't in 2000, which hadn't happened since the 1800s, I think. It just didn't feel or seem okay to many people.
Is that what you meant? If not, I'm sorry for wasting your time ! :-)
Posted by sdb on January 20, 2012, at 14:07:53
In reply to Re: Bush, finally elected by voters or ... » sdb, posted by 10derheart on January 20, 2012, at 12:29:02
> I'm guessing you are asking about the election 12 years ago...2000?
>
> If so, the opponent's campaign, Sen Al Gore, brought a suit in federal court to compel a manual recount of the votes in the State of Florida as this would determine who received the most electoral votes and therefore, who won the election.
>
> It was decided by the Supreme Court, not 'a judge,' in GWB's favor in the sense they did not think the votes needed to be recounted once again. He received 271 total electoral votes and Sen Gore received 266.
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
>
> I wouldn't call it a "transfer of power." It was an extremely important judicial decision, quite controversial of course, which according the the process we have in the U.S., ended the dispute over who won in Florida. I think people viscerally reacted more to other issues such as alleged voter fraud, outrage at the logistical problems with the ballots in Florida and who that might have benefited, and mostly, the fact GWB did not win the popular vote but *did* win the electoral vote, which legally elects you president. They usually go hand in hand but didn't in 2000, which hadn't happened since the 1800s, I think. It just didn't feel or seem okay to many people.
>
> Is that what you meant? If not, I'm sorry for wasting your time ! :-)No, your're not wasting my time. This is in every country a little different.
Obviously the electoral majority is what counts and Bush had won those votes. Hmmm, theoretically somebody could buy an electoral vote but I guess that the final vote of an electoral is public. And if somebody hadn't voted as expected it would have attracted attention.
I don't know much about the alleged voter fraud and how much that truly and possibly had affected the results in the year 2000.
Posted by sdb on January 20, 2012, at 14:12:42
In reply to Re: Bush, finally elected by voters or ..., posted by sdb on January 20, 2012, at 14:07:53
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.