# Bush wins! Again! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2001, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906 "2001-02-26T08:21:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/81 "2001-02-27T21:14:11Z")
**MGibson** , excessive deference to minority views to the extent that the country as a whole is fragmented and paralyzed is just as dangerous as failing to take account of them at all. That may explain why Canada no longer exists in twenty years or so, for instance. **Gadarene** I was referring to Hugo Black’s evolution from a Klansman to an ardent civil rights proponent as an example of how someone’s world-view can change radically, even in adulthood. Thanks for the reminder that it took place primarily before his joining the Supreme Court, but I think my underlying point still holds. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/82 "2001-02-27T21:44:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **Gadarene:** I was referring to Hugo Black’s evolution from a Klansman to an ardent civil rights proponent as an example of how someone’s world-view can change radically, even in adulthood. Thanks for the reminder that it took place primarily before his joining the Supreme Court, but I think my underlying point still holds. No, I don’t think it does. First, your initial post was in the context of a Supreme Court appointee shifting ideologically from the point of their appointment. Black underwent no such shift. Second, Hugo Black _didn’t_ “evolve” from a Klansman to an ardent civil rights proponent; most evidence shows that he was an ardent civil rights proponent long before he accepted membership in the Klan. Here’s the relevant passage from the book I’ve got on hand (I can quote to you from _Justices and Presidents_, considered one of the authorities on the politics behind Supreme Court appointments, when I get home): > [@](#): > > The worst thing about Hugo Black was his membership in the Ku Klux Klan as a young Alabama politician. The press reported his Klan affiliation before the Senate confirmed Black in August 1937 by sixty-three to sixteen, with all the negative votes cast by conservative Republicans. This issue did not cost him votes; Black’s colleagues accepted his claim that he thought he was joining a social club and resigned in 1925 when he discovered the Klan’s true nature. However, shortly after Black took his Supreme Court oath on August 17, reports surfaced that in 1926 he had secretly been sworn to life membership in the Klan. Black remained silent for six weeks, but the growing press storm finally bent his resolve not to respond. He stepped before radio microphones October 1 and spoke to a national audience. “I did join the Klan,” Black admitted. “I later resigned. I never rejoined.” He did not consider the “unsolicited” life membership card he received in 1926 “as a membership of any kind in the Ku Klux Klan,” Black explained. “I never used it. I did not even keep it.” There’s nothing that I have seen in Black’s history to remotely contradict his account of having joined the Klan for social reasons, though doubtless his desire to move up in Alabama politics at a time when most influential Alabama politicians were Klansmen also played a part. In fact, Black’s political record–from the time that he was Birmingham’s prosecuting attorney, before his Klan membership–consistently demonstrates his progressive views on civil rights. Though he was surely less enlightened in this regard than most people are today, he was never in any sense a racist relative to contemporaneous men and women. Thus, it’s wholly inaccurate for you to describe him as having undergone a profound shift in world-view as an adult, either before or after his ascension to the bench. I made a lengthy post once on the degree to which Supreme Court justices can be said to have shifted ideologically after their confirmations. If you like, I’ll dredge it up and reprint it. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/83 "2001-02-27T22:30:43Z")
Elvis- > [@](#): > > No, courts do not MAKE laws. Yes, they do INTERPRET existing laws. You’ve been confusing the two concepts. Who’s confused here? Of course interpreting laws is what courts are SUPPOSED to do. The Florida Supreme Court took that ‘interpretation’ ball and ran with it just a skosh too far. Perhaps you disagree. The Florida Legislature (who the U.S. and state constitutions give rule-making power over elections) didn’t, however. Hence their preparations to overturn the Fla. SC’s actions, which they saw as wrong and overstepping. Until SCOTUS made their actions moot. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/84 "2001-02-27T22:39:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **That kind of “conclusion” can happen when you give statisticians numbers out of context.** As Samuel Clemmens is believed to have said: There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. That certainly applies to the mess left-over from Florida, to ALL partisan parties, as each has it’s own methodolgy,and each is subjective, by definition. > [@](#): > > \*\*Florida was NOT a coin toss. There WAS a real winner. There was a concerted attempt not to find out who it was. \*\* My point is, and again, I apologize If I’ve been less than clear, that it’s so d\*mn close that _we cannot reconstruct the election_. We have no objective standard that declares one party the winner over the other, that doesn’t have a margin of error big enough to place that declaration in serious doubt. Yeah, one of the candiadates _probably_ got more votes, though not _necessarily_ so, but we can’t prove which one it was beyond a shodow of a doubt, and when you start departing from the legal standard of what constitutes a legal vote, and start looking for ‘voter intent’, the process only becomes even more muddy. Also, there’s the _ex post facto_ bit: The election must be judged by the laws in place at the time of the election, be they flawed or not. To change the rules after the election disenfranchises those persons (of both parties) whom _did_ cast legal, counted, ballots. Confused yet? Guess what. So is everyone else, save those whom are Religeously Political, and for whom only their candidate is legitimate, ever. I’m not one of those, I belong to the vast majority whom say: ‘It’s done, it wasn’t pretty, let’s do better next time’. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2001, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/85 "2001-02-27T23:33:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\*Do you believe that citizens of one part of the country are more important than others? \*\* Actually, this is a criticism of your position. In a popular vote all votes count the same. It is proponents of the Electoral Collage who need to justify inherent inequities. ## EC thread anyone? **Tranquilis** : If you believe so strongly in democracy then perhaps you should reconsider your support of the Constitution, which does not. * * * _No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea._ - **James Madison** ---
**Author:** ![71-Hour\_Achmed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/57b2e6/32.png) [@71-Hour\_Achmed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/71-Hour_Achmed)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/86 "2001-02-28T00:03:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\ ***Achmed:** > > > [@](#): > > > > …whereas the 7-2 split among the nine appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court, four of whom are considered “liberals”, indicates that they were partisan. > > Four of whom were considered to be **liberals**?? Um, which four would those be, exactly? (And claiming that the split was 7-2 is the height of disingenuousness…have you actually _read_ the opinion?)\*\* Yes, as a matter of fact, I did. Did you? Actually, how silly of me – apparently you **didn’t** , because otherwise you would have known that the USSC voted 7-2 that Florida’s SC “fornicated with the dog” as you Americans like to say. They also had a narrower 5-4 split on a second question of just how badly Florida’s SC did so. Even the newspapers bothered to mention these vote tallies, although apparently you wish to forget. The “liberals” on the USSC today include Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer. If you had paid any attention to the court for the last five years or so, you would know that the press widely touts a 5-4 conservative-liberal split. Please note that two of these four “liberal” Justices voted that the Florida SC must have inhaled before it made its 4-3 ruling (despite its being composed of seven Democrats) that overturned the appellate judge’s decision (who was another Democrat, BTW) that yet another recount/deadline extension/coin flip would be unlawful. (I believe Ginsberg was one of the dissenters in both the 7-2 and 5-4 decisions, from comments that she made later.) For your edification, here is a quote from the Supreme Court decision: > [@](#): > > “Seven justices of the court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. … The only disagreement is as to the remedy.” (The above from a column by Michael Kelly, at: [http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=kelly15&date=20001215](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=kelly15&date=20001215) Note that he refers to it as a quote from the actual decision.) An article confirming the 7-2 vote is available at: [http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=prez12&date=20001212](http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=prez12&date=20001212) I feel your pain. You have my sympathies for your inability to count to nine, seven, five, four, or even two. Try using both your right and left arms, then once you’ve mastered that, switch to fingers to get to ten. With toes you can make it to twenty! After that, you’ll have to remove some clothing. ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/87 "2001-02-28T00:43:14Z")
Milossarian, Grim Beaker, and possibly others have been asking me to back up my statements with cites. Okay, here’s a batch. First is Stephen Jay Gould’s article on why the Florida results can’t be determined. Then a very amusing explanation of the Supreme Court decision. Then several articles on how the the black vote was kept down in Florida. Finally, an article listing myths about Florida’s election results. I find these articles convincing and believable; Bush supporters will no doubt find reasons to reject them out of hand. [http://www.commondreams.org/views/113000-101.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views/113000-101.htm) Originally published in the Boston Globe-- “Indecision 2000: Heads or Tails?” By Stephen Jay Gould [http://www.windowatch.com/2000/December/levine6\_11.html](http://www.windowatch.com/2000/December/levine6_11.html) “The ‘Gore Exception’: A Layman’s Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore” by Mark H. Levine (This article by an actual lawyer started as a widely distributed e-mail and is now on the WindoWatch site.) [http://www.commondreams.org/views/120600-103.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views/120600-103.htm) Originally published in the Boston Globe-- “Choking the Florida Black Vote” by Derrick Z. Jackson [http://www.commondreams.org/views/121000-101.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views/121000-101.htm) Originally published in the Boston Globe— “The Lynching of the Black Vote” by Robert Kuttner [http://www.commondreams.org/views/121000-103.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views/121000-103.htm) Originally published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune— “Media Underreported Florida’s Obstacles to ‘Voting While Black’” by Noel Rubinton [http://www.commondreams.org/views/120600-106.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views/120600-106.htm) Originally published in the Progressive-- “Florida’s Foul-Ups–And Worse” by Matthew Rothschild [http://www.moveon.org/myths.html](http://www.moveon.org/myths.html) On the [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) site-- “13 Myths about the Results of the 2000 Election” by Rich Cowan ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/88 "2001-02-28T00:52:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > So what do you mean to imply? That the deep south and the Rocky Mountain states are going to threaten civil war if we don’t let them decide our elections? I fail to see how a majority-elected government will plunge us into civil war. > > Are you suggesting, then, that if California, New York, and Texas all dominated every single Federal election, then places like North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Alaska wouldn’t feel resentful? > > Last I heard, residents of those states were citizens, too. Do you believe that citizens of one part of the country are more important than others? \*\* I think you’ve got it backwards. The proponents of the electoral college are the ones who want to give more importance to the small states and/or rural area, by giving extra value to the votes of people living in small states and/or rural areas. We who want to scrap the electoral college (or modify its winner-take-all aspect) are the ones who want everyone’s vote to have the same value. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/89 "2001-02-28T01:40:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hazel \* > \*\*We who want to scrap the electoral college (or modify its winner-take-all aspect) are the ones who want everyone’s vote to have the same value. \*\* Unless of course you happen to live in Florida :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/90 "2001-02-28T01:53:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 71-Hour Achmed \* > > Actually, how silly of me – apparently you **didn’t** , because otherwise you would have known that the USSC voted 7-2 that Florida’s SC “fornicated with the dog” as you Americans like to say. We do?!? Never heard that expression. As to the more serious issue of the 7-2 to 5-4 split, I don’t entirely disagree with you although I think your interpretation is a bit off on what they really said. Basically, it comes down to this: 7 justices thought there were equal protection problems with the count as the FSU had devised it; 2 felt there were no such problems. Of these 7, 2 thought that the issue could and should be sent back to the FSU for remedy and the other 5 thought that it was too late. (The argument here basically comes down to the “safe harbor” prevision whereby a state’s electoral votes can’t be challenged by Congress if they are in by Dec. 12th. But, other states had previously gone beyond this “deadline” and, given the Republican advantage in the Congress, it seemed unlikely that there would be a challenge if they had gone beyond the 12th and Bush had still been declared the winner.) Of the 5 who thought that it was too late, 3 also wrote a separate opinion arguing that they thought the FSU decision was totally fucked (not the 5 that you claim), i.e., that there never should have been hand counts in the first place. > [@](#): > > The “liberals” on the USSC today include Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer. If you had paid any attention to the court for the last five years or so, you would know that the press widely touts a 5-4 conservative-liberal split. I think a more realistic assessment of the makeup of the Court is that there are 3 mad-dog conservative justices, 2 moderately-conservative justices, and 4 liberal-to-centrist justices. (Brennon and Marshall could be called “mad-dog liberal” justices [in a good sort of way, in my admittedly-biased opinion 😉] but they ain’t on the court anymore.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/91 "2001-02-28T04:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tranquilis \*…and when you start departing from the legal standard of what constitutes a legal vote, and start looking for ‘voter intent’, the process only becomes even more muddy. Except that that WAS the legal standard of what constituted a legal vote in Florida. Interpretation was legally left to the local canvassing boards, like it or not. Yes? > [@](#): > > Also, there’s the _ex post facto_ bit: The election must be judged by the laws in place at the time of the election, be they flawed or not. To change the rules after the election disenfranchises those persons (of both parties) whom _did_ cast legal, counted, ballots. > \*\* Precisely, as I stated above. I’m glad we agree that the law defining a valid ballot was flouted and effectively nullified. I hope we can also agree to “salute the uniform” when we see the Presidency occupied by a man who obtained it illegally, not just dishonorably. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/92 "2001-02-28T04:51:10Z")
**Gadarene** , re Hugo Black, if it’s so important to you to win a point from me, then congratulation, you’ve won a point from me. OK? ---
**Author:** ![71-Hour\_Achmed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/57b2e6/32.png) [@71-Hour\_Achmed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/71-Hour_Achmed)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/93 "2001-02-28T08:15:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by 71-Hour Achmed \* > > … the USSC voted 7-2 that Florida’s SC “fornicated with the dog” as you Americans like to say. > > We do?!? Never heard that expression.\*\* Abject apologies. My cousin Mahmoud corrects me: “screwed the pooch”. > [@](#): > > \*\*As to the more serious issue of the 7-2 to 5-4 split, I don’t entirely disagree with you although I think your interpretation is a bit off on what they really said. > > Basically, it comes down to this: _(well-stated evaluation deleted in the interests of space)_ > > I think a more realistic assessment of the makeup of the Court is that there are 3 mad-dog conservative justices, 2 moderately-conservative justices, and 4 liberal-to-centrist justices.\*\* Ah. From my viewpoint, there are three statist-revisionists, two socialists, and four left-wing wackos. 😃 Achmed “Pinochet was a Liberal” H. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/94 "2001-02-28T09:29:49Z")
> [@](#): > > In a popular vote all votes count the same. Yeah, but not all regions count the same. Why should the state of Wyoming or Colorado count less than the state of California, just 'cuz there’s not a whole lot of waterfront property in the center of the continent? ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/95 "2001-02-28T12:30:14Z")
**SPOOFE Bo Diddley** said: _Yeah, but not all regions count the same. Why should the state of Wyoming or Colorado count less than the state of California, just 'cuz there’s not a whole lot of waterfront property in the center of the continent?_ Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with waterfront property, as it happens. The reason that the state of Wyoming should count less than the state of California is simple: California has more people living in it than Wyoming does. More people, more votes. It makes sense. Do the math: Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and three electoral votes. California has a population of 32,000,000 and 54 electoral votes (55, as of the 2000 census.) So, 500,000÷3=166,667, or one electoral vote per 166,667 Wyoming citizens. Likewise: 32,000,000÷54=592,593, or one electoral vote per 592,593 California citizens. This means that if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts three and a half times as much as it would if you lived in California! How can anyone call this fair? This is indefensible! Frankly, I resent being penalized just because I live in a populous state. If you live in California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania, your vote should carry equal weight as the votes of those who live in Wyoming or Vermont or North Dakota or Alaska. Voting in America should be done away with. The rural privilege is not fair. ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/96 "2001-02-28T12:31:41Z")
**SPOOFE Bo Diddley** said: _Yeah, but not all regions count the same. Why should the state of Wyoming or Colorado count less than the state of California, just 'cuz there’s not a whole lot of waterfront property in the center of the continent?_ Well, it doesn’t have anything to do with waterfront property, as it happens. The reason that the state of Wyoming should count less than the state of California is simple: California has more people living in it than Wyoming does. More people, more votes. It makes sense. Do the math: Wyoming has a population of 500,000 and three electoral votes. California has a population of 32,000,000 and 54 electoral votes (55, as of the 2000 census.) So, 500,000÷3=166,667, or one electoral vote per 166,667 Wyoming citizens. Likewise: 32,000,000÷54=592,593, or one electoral vote per 592,593 California citizens. This means that if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts three and a half times as much as it would if you lived in California! How can anyone call this fair? This is indefensible! Frankly, I resent being penalized just because I live in a populous state. If you live in California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania, your vote should carry equal weight as the votes of those who live in Wyoming or Vermont or North Dakota or Alaska. All votes in America should be equal. The rural privilege should be done away with. ---
**Author:** ![Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@Chance\_the\_Gardener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chance_the_Gardener)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/97 "2001-02-28T12:35:35Z")
Anyone reading my posts, please disregard the typo in the first post I clumsily submitted before editing properly. I did _not_ mean to suggest that voting in America should be done away with. If the moderator could wipe out my first post, I’d appreciate it. Anyone else, please read my second posting of this message for the correct version of my last paragraph. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/98 "2001-02-28T14:14:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > Basically, it comes down to this: 7 justices thought there were equal protection problems with the count as the FSU had devised it; 2 felt there were no such problems. Of these 7, 2 thought that the issue could and should be sent back to the FSU for remedy and the other 5 thought that it was too late I don’t think it was even as far as that. I think the two liberals who agreed that there were equal protection concerns did not explicitly say that they felt the decision could be overturned on these grounds - merely that there was room for concern (which they felt could be alleviated in any event). In fact, I seem to remember one of the two (I’ve forgotten if it was Breyer or Souter) writing explicitly that he was not saying this. The media presented the decision as if it was a 7-2 decision to reverse, but in reading the decisions I did not get that impression at all. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/99 "2001-02-28T17:10:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chance the Gardener \* > \*\ ***MGibson** said: _And you’d be quite happy, it would seem, with a system that allows the majority to drown out the voice of the minority._ > > That’s unpleasant. However, isn’t it worse to have a system where the voice of the minority drowns out the voice of the majority? You know, like what happened in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, or like what happened for so many years in South Africa? > \*\* That would indeed be tragic. Thankfully, the U.S. system is nothing of the sort. The electoral college is a means of _balancing_ the majority vote and the minority needs. It gives minority states disproportionate representation; as a result, it will occasionally allow the minority vote to take precedence. This is a far, far cry from your South African example, wherein the minority routinely and regularly dominated **and** oppressed the majority. ---
**Author:** ![Rillian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bcef8e/32.png) [@Rillian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rillian)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906/100 "2001-02-28T19:51:29Z")
As tracked by [http://www.democrats.com](http://www.democrats.com), Gore currently leads in the recount of the Florida vote by 1,017. 11/27/00 Certified by Katherine Harris -537 12/08/00 Florida Supreme Court ruling +383 = -154 12/18/00 Lake County manual recount +130 = - 24 12/19/00 Broward manual recount +164 = +140 12/29/00 Hernando manual recount +4 = +144 12/30/00 Hillsborough manual recount +120 = +264 01/03/01 Gadsden manual recount +40 = +304 01/14/01 Miami-Dade manual recount #1 (minus prior recount included in 12/8) -6 +11 -209 = +100 01/20/01 Collier manual recount -226 = -126 01/27/01 Palm Beach manual recount +682 = +556 01/28/01 15 County manual recount (minus prior recounts in Lake and Gadsden) +366 -170 = +752 02/10/01 Orange manual recount +203 = +955 02/15/01 Seminole manual recount +13 = +968 02/26/01 Miami-Dade manual recount #2 +49 = +1017 Total Gore Gain from Recounts +1554 See [http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181](http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181) for more details. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-wins-again/55906.md?page=6)