# Why do people think Gore won the popular vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2000, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032 "2000-12-17T17:55:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2001, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/41 "2001-01-05T18:24:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\*The media-consortium count is continuing, but some members may be losing interest, though. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Times, for instance, may see nothing to gain from participating in a possible delegitimization of Bush - better to be able to portray it from outside as a sore-loser Democratic plot instead. \*\* Given how firmly the Wall Street Journal has been in Bush’s camp since _before_ election day, this doesn’t surprise me in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2001, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/42 "2001-01-06T12:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*Mahaloth, there are really two questions here: > > 1. Is there any reason to suspect that the uncounted ballots across the country are statistically biased? Absent any reason to believe that, then we have to go with the ‘null hypothesis’ that each of those uncounted ballots is equally likely to be a vote for Bush or for Gore. And given that assumption, **JasonFin** ’s analysis of the vote, nationally, is on target. > > 2. Is there any reason to believe that the uncounted ballots in Florida are statistically biased? Absent any reason to believe that, I could give the same qualifier. > > Except there **is** reason to believe that the uncounted ballots are biased toward Gore. The [Miami Herald](http://herald.com/content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/104268.htm) published a precinct-by-precinct analysis of the uncounted ballots in FL, and went with the assumption that the _counted_ ballots in each precinct - in all cases, the vast majority - were a good sample of the intent of _all_ the voters in that precinct, whether their votes were counted or not. > > Based on that assumption, they came up with the conclusion that 23,000 more people in FL tried to vote for Gore than for Bush. > > And that’s a conservative assumption, in at least one county ([Palm Beach](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=46135)), and possibly others. \*\* Is anyone aware if the total U.S. uncounted votes were subjected to the same sort of extrapolation–meaning, analyzing where the uncounted votes came from and determining intent via an analysis of the counted votes? Precinct by precinct, I mean. This would be tedious work perhaps (I know I’m not volunteering), but if this was a reasonable method in Florida, why not across the country? IOW, why would we assume the “null hypothesis” when we have all the information available we need to determine if uncounted votes nationally were likely to go to either of the two? Sorry if this was cited and I missed it. ---
**Author:** ![SterlingNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@SterlingNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SterlingNorth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/43 "2001-01-07T04:11:36Z")
I remember reading an article in the Washington Post that started to do just that. If I can find it again, I’ll post the link. Basically it said that the votes tended to be thrown out in poor districts (thanks to that great invention – the punch card ballot and voting machine), which as fate has seemed to decree, are largely black districts. Which seems to support the thesis that Al Gore lost more votes due to circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![Oblong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c0e974/32.png) [@Oblong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oblong)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/44 "2001-01-07T06:47:54Z")
> [@](#): > > or instance a lot of potential Gore voters in Florida, after hearing prematurely that Gore had won Florida, may have decided that they didn’t need to fight the crowds to get to the polls. Parts of the panhandle, which Bush won heavily is in the central time zone. The polls were open for another hour when the networks called Florida for Bush. That could have caused just as many voters that intended to vote for Bush to leave as any ‘abuses or irregularities’ that Gore could claim. Who won the popular vote is as signifigant as which candidate is taller. Bush won more states, counties, land mass, and electoral votes (the one that matters). That’s legitimate enough for me. Not trying to hijack or anything, I just don’t see the signifigance of the popular vote. It doesn’t mean anything in my opinion. I’m a Bush supporter and was actually expecting Bush to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote and was prepared to live with it. ---
**Author:** ![SterlingNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@SterlingNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SterlingNorth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/45 "2001-01-07T08:52:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Oblong \* > > Parts of the panhandle, which Bush won heavily is in the central time zone. The polls were open for another hour when the networks called Florida for Bush. One: You meant “… when the networks called Florida for Gore.” Two: No, you’re still wrong. I remember CBS not calling Florida until 7:48pm ET. That meant the panhandle folks had 12 minutes to go out and vote. But CBS was peobably the slow network that night. ---
**Author:** ![Oblong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c0e974/32.png) [@Oblong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oblong)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/46 "2001-01-07T17:27:44Z")
A section of Florida is in the central time zone and the polls were open until 8:00 p.m. CT. 7:48 ET would be 6:48 CT so that would be an hour and 12 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/47 "2001-01-07T19:31:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Oblong \* > **Who won the popular vote is as signifigant as which candidate is taller. Bush won more states, counties, land mass, and electoral votes (the one that matters). That’s legitimate enough for me.** [rant] So you couldn’t care less which candidate was actually chosen by more _people,_ and are satisfied instead with which candidate won more _real estate?_ [/rant] Flawed as the electoral college system is, I think it does have its uses to prevent larger states from overwhelming smaller states. But to flat-out say “people aren’t as important as land” strikes me as simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/48 "2001-01-07T22:38:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Oblong \* > \*\*A section of Florida is in the central time zone and the polls were open until 8:00 p.m. CT. 7:48 ET would be 6:48 CT so that would be an hour and 12 minutes. \*\* except the polls in Florida close at 7, not 8. so you’re back to the 12 minutes. Check back on any of the thousand or so election threads. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2001, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/49 "2001-01-07T23:32:41Z")
Sorry, but the polls in Florida closed at 7:30. Yes, thirty. And the pan handle closed at 8:30(ET) but 7:30(CT), so the network calls did effect it. I tend to think that no more than 500-1000 people went home, but that’s more than enough to swing the vote, assuming they go pretty heavily for either candidate. These discussions about minor points reveal why I think the best thing to do in this election was to count the votes, recount and whoever wins after that is the winner. Does anyone believe that if they had done hand recounts all around the state of Florida and Gore came out ahead, that the whole nation would have rallied around Gore as the true winner? Granted, Gore MAY have gotten more votes but that is unknowable. The same can be said for the popular vote and Bush. If they recounted those and he was ahead, it wouldn’t make him the clear winner. We had a tie, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Oblong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c0e974/32.png) [@Oblong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oblong)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2001, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/50 "2001-01-08T05:49:00Z")
> [@](#): > > [rant] > So you couldn’t care less which candidate was actually chosen by more people, and are satisfied instead with which candidate won more real estate? > [/rant] > > Flawed as the electoral college system is, I think it does have its uses to prevent larger states from overwhelming smaller states. But to flat-out say “people aren’t as important as land” strikes me as simply wrong. Actually, yes I couldn’t care less. We live in a republic, not a democracy. I prefer it that way because of the reason you said in paragraph two. Legally and morally the popular vote means as much as which candidate has the shorter name. I don’t care what somebody in California or New York thinks. I live in Michigan and that’s all I am supposed to care about-what’s good for me and my state. Let them worry about their state and we’ll see who wins. That’s how it’s done in Congress. Bring home the bacon boys. So I was wrong about the polls. Either way, circumstances happened that affected both sides so it’s a wash for me. I agree with Mahaloth, it was a tie but someone had to win. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2001, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/51 "2001-01-08T13:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mahaloth \* > Sorry, but the polls in Florida closed at 7:30. Yes, thirty. And the pan handle closed at 8:30(ET) but 7:30(CT), so the network calls did effect it. > > I tend to think that no more than 500-1000 people went home, but that’s more than enough to swing the vote, assuming they go pretty heavily for either candidate. I’d give that pretty-common argument more credence if there had been any claims by anyone in the Panhandle to come forward and claim that they didn’t go to vote because etc. Considering the very real number of people saying they personally did get fooled by butterfly ballots, or were turned away, etc., I have to think the “issue” of the Panhandle closing time is a smokescreen. > [@](#): > > Does anyone believe that if they had done hand recounts all around the state of Florida and Gore came out ahead, that the whole nation would have rallied around Gore as the true winner? Except for the usual right-wing suspects, I think the answer is yes. But there’s no way to know, of course. > [@](#): > > We had a tie, don’t you think? No. Somebody had more votes than the others; but we’re being prevented from analyzing them closely enough to know. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2001, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/52 "2001-01-08T13:30:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Oblong \* > Actually, yes I couldn’t care less. We live in a republic, not a democracy. I prefer it that way because of the reason you said in paragraph two. Legally and morally the popular vote means as much as which candidate has the shorter name. May I ask that hoary old question about how you’d feel if the situation were reversed? It’s a little strange to hear someone still claiming after more than 2 centuries that democracy means nothing and that states’ rights are supreme. ---
**Author:** ![Oblong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c0e974/32.png) [@Oblong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oblong)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2001, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/53 "2001-01-08T19:09:20Z")
As I said before, as a Bush supporter I thought before the election that Bush would win the popular vote and lose the EC vote and was prepared to live with it. There was no objective way to review the ballots without creating votes. Count the votes in Florida the same way they were counted everywhere else. That’s what they did. A vote is only vote when cast properly. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/54 "2001-01-08T19:58:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Oblong \* > Count the votes in Florida the same way they were counted everywhere else. That’s what they did. That’s _not_ what they did–or are you forgetting the county in which overvotes were added in the first count, going primarily to Bush? If not, I can dig up a cite… Jeez, are we really getting back into all of this again? ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2001, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/55 "2001-01-21T05:37:12Z")
I think there should have been a thorough investigation of all allegations of errors and cheating in Florida. If the conclusion was that these factors were sufficient to alter the outcome, Florida’s election results should have been disallowed. Alternatively, if the official results were accepted as valid, Florida should still have been disallowed – on the grounds that the results were a tie. The official results, according to one article I saw, had Bush winning by 1/100 of one percent. The margin of error is greater then that. When the spread between the winner and the guy who came in second is less then the margin of error, you have a tie. IMHO, if you toss out one state’s results, the number of electoral votes needed to win should be automatically reduced by that state’s number of votes. If you toss Florida, the number needed should then be 255. This would have made Gore the winner. OTOH, suppose you take the position that 270 is the magic number, no matter what. Then, without FL, no one had 270 votes. The election would have been decided by Congress, who might well have given it to Bush. I could have accepted that much more readily then what did happen. The founders intended that disputed elections be decided by Congress, not the courts. And I’d rather have the choice made by a large, elected body (Congress) then by a small appointed body (the Supreme Court). ---
**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:** [January 21, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/56 "2001-01-21T17:49:50Z")
**oblong** says: \* As a Bush supporter I thought before the election that Bush would win the popular vote and lose the EC vote and was prepared to live with it.\* You really think so? Well, check this out: [http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/News\_and\_Views/Beyond\_the\_City/a-86769.asp](http://www.nydailynews.com/2000-11-01/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-86769.asp) Seems like Bush was certainly _not_ willing to accept the consequences of the electoral college. Naturally, we never heard the end of the braying of Bush voters whose candidate was “elected” (and I use the term _very_ loosely) but who came in only second place in the popular vote. By the way: check the date on the article. November 1, 2000: definitely before the election. Bush was all prepared to be a sore loser, man. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2001, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/57 "2001-01-21T19:30:11Z")
Theres a reason why we have the electorial college you know. In america there were about 2.5 million people during the revolution, in Britan there were about 11 million. Naturally they realised that if popular vote were counted the British could, in a democracy impose whatever they wanted on America. While the EC may occasionally make the popular vote lose its the only way to keep everywhere besides the large urban areas represented. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/58 "2001-01-21T21:42:32Z")
I’m always hearing (reading) this; > [@](#): > > While the EC may occasionally make the popular vote lose its the only way to keep everywhere besides the large urban areas represented. I don’t undrestand that. In what way would the smaller areas be disadvantaged by the lack of the EC? I’ve watched debates on the tube and read opinions about the EC, and the only thing that makes sense to me is that candidates _might_ not campaign in less populated areas, though I doubt that this would happen. But so what if they didn’t? I live in a major population center, and the only place I’ve yet to see any campaigning is on TV. The president doesn’t represent states. That’s what we have Congress for, isn’t it? Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032/59 "2001-01-22T06:11:51Z")
In America today, anyone can learn as much as he or she wants to about any candidate, via newspapers, the networks, cable news channels, magazines, and the internet. What does it matter where the candidates campaign? When I see a soundbite or read a quote, I don’t even notice where the guy was. Can anyone cite any recent examples of a Presidential candidate trying to win a state by promising that state anything? It seems to me that candidates woo groups, not states. If a candidate tries to appeal to a cirtain group – farmers, the christian right, pro gun rights people, prochoice people, city dwellers, independent voters, or whatever – he wants to win the votes of all people in that group, in whatever state they may live. And doesn’t the EC confir a lot of power on the dozen or so large states that can swing an election? Giving the smaller states extra powe doesn’t help those states, it just gives more value to the votes of the individual people who live there. People whose votes are much more influenced by who they are and what they belive then by what state they live in. They’d vote the same way if they moved to some other state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-think-gore-won-the-popular-vote/46032.md?page=2)