# Hypothetical question about recounts in the 2000 presidential election **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 23, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452 "2015-02-23T22:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/1 "2015-02-23T22:49:51Z")
Imagine that the 2000 election had indeed advanced to the stage of being decided by recounts and more recounts. If there had been multiple machine recounts - half of them showing Bush winning and half of them showing Gore winning - and also multiple manual recounts - again, half of them indicating a Bush victory and half of them indicating a Gore victory - how would the courts or election commissions have decided which results to use as valid? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/2 "2015-02-23T22:56:03Z")
Also, if the election had remained undecided for many months, would Bill Clinton get to remain incumbent president until the election was decided - let’s say, the middle of 2001? Is it Constitutional for a sitting president to stay in office for longer than 8 years for such a reason? ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/3 "2015-02-23T23:25:28Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Also, if the election had remained undecided for many months, would Bill Clinton get to remain incumbent president until the election was decided - let’s say, the middle of 2001? Is it Constitutional for a sitting president to stay in office for longer than 8 years for such a reason? If Florida’s electors don’t vote, then the house of reps would vote on the new President because neither would have a majority. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/4 "2015-02-24T01:22:40Z")
Yep, and no, Clinton would not have remained President. It’s pretty specifically defined how long a President’s term is. Once it’s up, he’d be out. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/5 "2015-02-24T01:27:38Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Yep, and no, Clinton would not have remained President. It’s pretty specifically defined how long a President’s term is. Once it’s up, he’d be out. Then who’d be interim President if neither Bush nor Gore had been certified the victor yet? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/6 "2015-02-24T01:37:45Z")
Florida’s electors wouldn’t vote and so Gore would win. As for recounts, the last one is the “correct” one, even though it’s not any more reliable than the recounts before it. But there wouldn’t have been multiple recounts because there wouldn’t have been time, so Florida wouldn’t have been able to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/7 "2015-02-24T01:45:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Florida’s electors wouldn’t vote and so Gore would win. Gore wouldn’t have 270 though. If I understand correctly, 270 is needed - even Gore 267, Bush 246 wouldn’t do. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/8 "2015-02-24T02:00:45Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > If Florida’s electors don’t vote, then the house of reps would vote on the new President because neither would have a majority. And in the house of representatives, the Republicans held a majority after the 2000 election, right? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/9 "2015-02-24T02:42:26Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Gore wouldn’t have 270 though. If I understand correctly, 270 is needed - even Gore 267, Bush 246 wouldn’t do. Ah, yes, you’re right. So the Republicans would just vote Bush/Cheney in anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/10 "2015-02-24T04:33:48Z")
Of course, in all likelihood, it wouldn’t have come to that. The Florida legislature likely would have picked the state’s electors, which is what they were on the verge of doing when the Supreme Court ruled. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/11 "2015-02-24T05:08:37Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Gore wouldn’t have 270 though. If I understand correctly, 270 is needed - even Gore 267, Bush 246 wouldn’t do. Is it? The Constitution requires “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” If Florida simply hadn’t had electors, then there would have just been fewer electors appointed, wouldn’t there? Or does “appointed” refer to the decision of Congress to set the size of the House of Representatives and apportion seats in a certain way? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/12 "2015-02-24T13:46:36Z")
> [@chrisk](#): > > And in the house of representatives, the Republicans held a majority after the 2000 election, right? It would have been the existing Congress that does the voting, not the new members elected in 2000. The federal statute requires the states to report in December, and the official count is in early January, by a joint session of the lame duck Congress. If no-one has a majority of the electors, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.” > [@adaher](#): > > Ah, yes, you’re right. So the Republicans would just vote Bush/Cheney in anyway. Republicans held a majority in both houses in the [105th Congress](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_United_States_Congress), so Cheney was a lock. But did they have a majority of the 50 states, since the vote is by state, not individual members? I assume so, since the Republicans normally hold a lot of small states like Wyoming, but is that confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/13 "2015-02-24T14:01:10Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Of course, in all likelihood, it wouldn’t have come to that. The Florida legislature likely would have picked the state’s electors, which is what they were on the verge of doing when the Supreme Court ruled. Yeah, there really was no path to victory for Gore other than to get a successful hand recount. I’m just not sure that any large state can do such a recount in time to certify electors. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/14 "2015-02-24T14:12:15Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > It would have been the existing Congress that does the voting, not the new members elected in 2000. The federal statute requires the states to report in December, and the official count is in early January, by a joint session of the lame duck Congress. If no-one has a majority of the electors, “the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.” That’s now done by the new Congress. The members of the new Congress take office on the 3rd of January, and the electoral votes aren’t counted until the 6th. The beginning of the Congressional term was changed in the 20th Amendment so that there would be a couple of weeks for the new Congress to deal with the presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/15 "2015-02-24T14:18:31Z")
Wouldn’t Lieberman have had a shot at being VP if it went to Congress? Especially with Jeffords a possible swing vote? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/16 "2015-02-24T14:23:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wouldn’t Lieberman have had a shot at being VP if it went to Congress? Especially with Jeffords a possible swing vote? Yes, and the new Senate was 50-50, so electing a VP at all would have required someone to change sides. (I don’t think the sitting VP has a tie-breaking vote, as it requires a “majority of the whole number” of senators.) The House was a lock for Bush. If I count [this map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:107_us_house_membership.png) correctly, Republicans had 28 states to the Democrats’ 18. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/17 "2015-02-24T14:52:25Z")
My mistake. Thanks for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/18 "2015-02-25T05:18:39Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Is it? The Constitution requires “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.” If Florida simply hadn’t had electors, then there would have just been fewer electors appointed, wouldn’t there? > > Or does “appointed” refer to the decision of Congress to set the size of the House of Representatives and apportion seats in a certain way? The articles on the 1864 election seem to suggest that it is the number of electors actually appointed, not the theoretical number. Both the wiki article and this other article assume that the college was composed solely of northern states who appointed electors, not the total number of electors that could have been appointed by the southern states (who didn’t, obviously, but could have, since in law they were still part of the Union). The wiki article on the 1860 election gives the number of electors as 303; the article on the 1864 election gives the number as 233. > **[1864 United States presidential election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864)** > > Abraham Lincoln > Republican > Abraham Lincoln > National Union > Presidential elections were held in the United States on November 8, 1864, near the end of the American Civil War. Incumbent President Abraham Lincoln of the National Union Party easily defeated the Democratic nominee, former General George B. McClellan, by a wide margin of 212–21 in the electoral college, with 55% of the popular vote. For the election, the Republican Party and some Democrats created the National Union Party, especia... > **[1860 United States presidential election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860)** > > James Buchanan > Democratic > Abraham Lincoln > Republican > Presidential elections were held in the United States on November 6, 1860. The Republican Party ticket of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin won a national popular plurality, a popular majority in the North where states had already abolished slavery, and a national electoral majority comprising only Northern electoral votes. Lincoln's election thus served as the main catalyst of the states that would become the Confederacy seceding from t... > **[Election of 1864 Voting Results and Participants - CountingTheVotes.com](https://www.countingthevotes.com/election-of-1864/)** > > Detailed results of Election of 1864 with participants votes distribution and more ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/19 "2015-02-25T05:23:04Z")
Interesting article on the powers of the Vice-President when acting as President of the Senate and counting the electoral votes: “How Jefferson Counted Himself In” > **[How Jefferson Counted Himself In](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/03/how-jefferson-counted-himself-in/302888/)** > > Something was funny about the Georgia ballot during the 1800 election. Did Thomas Jefferson act properly in making himself President in 1801? A historical detective story ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-question-about-recounts-in-the-2000-presidential-election/713452/20 "2015-03-02T20:12:03Z")
I am going to assume that, one way or the other, there would have been a “final result” in Florida before the Electors were forced to vote, and the Florida votes that were cast would have been challenged, in which case, it’s a “best two out of three” of the House (which would have voted for Bush), the Senate (which would have voted for Gore, because the 50-50 tie would have been broken by the sitting VP, which was still Gore until January 20), and “the executive of the state”, which, depending on how you interpret the statement, is either the state’s Secretary of State, or its Governor at the time - Jeb Bush. As I recall, there were attempts to challenge Florida’s electoral votes anyway, but the law requires that any challenge be made by both one Representative and one Senator, and there was some backroom deal made where if no Democratic Senators objected, then the Democrats would be given some benefit in committee appointments - I think the deal was that, instead of the Republicans having two more Senators per committee than the Democrats, it would be only one. As it turned out, this lasted for about five months, when Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to independent and voted with the Democrats, giving them a 51-49 majority.