election shananigonometer: activated

no doubt the subject of election 2000 will come up in many conversations that we will find ourselves in during the next 2 months. its a very complex issue. there were multiple problems , multiple recounts, and byzantine results. here are some articles that i've been revisiting to remind myself of what happened. i haven't seen the documentary that was made. "Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots. <>The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December." -- "Gore's Victory," Consortium News The major caveat to keep in mind about the results is that they did show that had votes been counted in the way that Gore's attornies had requested in court, Bush would have won. Those are the partial recounts mentioned in the second paragraph above. This means had the supreme court done nothing bush still may have won. Is that the most important issue? Probably not, what matters is who would have won if the votes had been counted correctly, and that is surely Gore. However, even this pyric, in terms of legitimacy, victory for Bush might not have happened... BUT: "A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called “overvotes” that heavily favored Gore." -- "So Did Bush Steal the White House?," Consortium News ... more to come. this post will grow... <>