Election 2000: Why Gore Lost and Other Issues

Though many do not like Bush personally, and his assuming he won before he really did does not help, this net lack of much change is one big reason he maybe won. It is true he will have an effect, surely on the judiciary (but who really cares about that in the scheme of things, even if we all should), but not as much as some much suspect. He's likeable and picks good staff, and can't be too stupid, since he is governor of Texas after all (joke omitted, but Texas does have a relatively weak governor system). Clinton had his flaws, but his likability won him the election, though he clearly was smart as well. Gore is not that likeable, has the taint of Clinton scandals (Bush has his own, but except for the drug and alcohol issues -- both old news -- few hear about them), and did not highlight the security of the Clinton years. Gore seemed to constantly be re-establishing himself, suggesting whatever he said was basically fake. Finally, the Elian thing pushed many Florida Cubans against him. These are all reasons that suggest why Gore maybe/probably lost.

George Bush obviously has his own negatives, the lack of experience, apparently lack of intelligence, and conservative leanings on various issues (including the death penalty), leading the list. Such negatives help explain why he probably did not win the popular vote, especially in those big states that Gore won, which lean Democratic (especially, NY and California). On the other hand, people can not just say he bought the election (though they do), since Gore and the Democrats are no slouches in that department. Furthermore, saying daddy helped him is silly, since (1) why shouldn't he and (2) a lot of people like daddy, including some who use him as some kind of negative against Bush Jr. Nonetheless, people like change, we are a nation of change, and a likeable and apparently satisfactorily competent alternative to the Clinton years attracts a lot of people. I am surprised so many were so attracted, but I guess I did not consider Gore's negatives to be that serious.

What about Ralph Nader? He never did get that five percent needed for the Green Party to get public funding, and his important alternate voice was hurt at times by his arrogance and pedantic methods. Nonetheless, the small band of supporters, rebels and idealists he had on his side was a symbol of what Al Gore was lacking. Furthermore, the election was so close that the inability of Gore to properly take advantage of the good feelings the Clinton era brought (some of Gore's rhetoric suggested times really weren't that good, which suggests perhaps more of the same is not a good idea)without tying it to the former President's moral failings meant that small band (surely more Democratic in sentiment than Republican) was big enough to matter in some states (especially Florida where their 90 thousand plus numbers clearly was enough to put a win in Gore's column). Nonetheless, one should not really blame the symptom of the disease for the disease itself, and Gore's failings ultimately were more to blame than Nader's candidacy.

Republicans were upset that some exit polls from Florida were released before the election there was over. The problem, a problem that early on gave a false security to Democrats, is that the Western panhandle of the state is in another time zone. Honestly, I did not know this, but one would think news organizations and polling authorities would. Anyway, given the ultimate result alone, one questions how valid their complaints really were, especially since we are talking less than an hour here. After all, news organizations that call races in some parts of the country surely are more liable to affect people going to the polls on the West Coast than such a narrow area of voters. Nonetheless, their beef was a legitimate one, though (see the link) polling itself is clearly an inexact science, especially in a very close election.

The true loser in the polling area was the Voter News Service(VNS), a polling organization that many news organizations used as their primary source for data. This monopoly of data that is necessarily inexact is a bad policy, comparable to relying on one source for your news material, and came to a head in the 2000 election. VNS admitted to making some errors in their computations, errors that helped to add to the confusion of a truly bizarre election night (the winner of the presidency switched hands and ultimately was declared to close to call). If the election clearly showed the flaws with our current election machinery (see below), it also showed some flaws in how we interpret polling data.

Finally, I think there clearly is a problem with the using of exit poll data that might very well affect the rest of the country. This is best seen in presidential elections, where early returns that suggest the race is over is likely to cause less people in Western states to go to the polls. This harms candidates in other races, as well as the ability to give a true picture of how much support the presidential candidates have in those areas. I believe a staggered system of voting hours nationwide might help this problem, as well as voluntary guidelines by news organizations. The problem's true severity is still a matter of debate, but the last election shows us that a bit of discretion is well worth it, if the result is a more electoral legitimacy overall. Truthfully, especially with the internet, the exit poll data is sure to get out there, but a determined effort to limit it would not be a bad thing (do we really need to know a minute after the polls close who won?).

Court Materials

Different Interpretations of Basic Issues of Bush v. Gore

Reasons Supreme Court Should Not Get Involved; Same Analyst: Outrage After Final Result

More Outrage [Vincent Bugliosi]

Many Blacks In Particular Are Outraged

My interpretation of the path of events from Election Day to the press recounts is a bit on the long side, since it truly is a complex story. Nonetheless, it can be briefly summarized for those who do not feel the need to go here to examine it in more detail. Also, the links above provide a summary of the issues, expressions of outrage that I share, as well as court materials (including the various opinions of the Supreme Court). These resources can provide a fuller picture than I can, though I think I summarize the events fairly well, which also lets me submit my point of view on the different issues. Anyway, to summarize:

Anyway, it's rather amazing just how many changes were made in the system to "restore voter confidence in our election process," after the fact: (1) No more Palm Beach type or Punch Card ballots at all; all will have more accurate optical scanners or touch-screen technology (arguably even this would not truly be equal per the Supreme Court command under Bush v Gore) with money to help the change(2) Provisional ballots for those whose ability to vote is in question (possible felons etc), and the validity would be settled later (3) Requirements for clear procedures for manual recounts, including for "overvotes," when more than one candidate is chosen (must be hand checked when the margin of victory was within a quarter of one percent, a ridiculously small margin given how maybe as much as 120,000 overvotes were involved in the last election) (4)Central Voter Database (major problem last time was inability to call voting headquarters for clarifications) (5) Four more days for recounts (still too short, what's the big rush?) and (6) Easier absentee voting. None of these reforms are trivial, and all in some way affected the Bush/Gore election. Hopefully, states throughout the nation will take this as a warning, and reform their election procedures.

The logical conclusion: a vast number intended to vote for Gore, but messed up (one estimate gave him a 15000 vote lead). The final thing to determine: do we just call over a hundred thousand people idiots, or wonder if a confusing voting procedure (e.g. couple types of ballots in particular had the most problems) trumped voter intent, and ultimately democracy. The idea that there might not have been a way to correct the error, though some overvotes were able to be counted and the rest surely appear to be disproportionately for Gore, does not make choosing the wrong President that much easier for me. What about you?

The report addressed the "responsibility without accountability" of state officials with the moral and legal duty to uphold rights of voters, as well as the power to do so. It commented on outdated equipment, inadequate resources at polling places with special notice of lack of translators, computers in poor/black areas, polls closing too soon, lack of provisional ballots especially when many of the problems arose from busy phone lines and state error, and so on. These factors, including the use of less efficient and accurate punch card ballots, especially affected minorities.

Could this all be denied? No. The only response was that voter error was the problem, as if (1) part of the error, including confusing ballots and faulty machines was not the fault of the state (2) helping voters, especially by legally mandated ways such as translators and well staffed and resourced polling places was not the duty of a true democracy and (3) disparate impact skewered the true intent of the voter and the result, which is rather upsetting to contemplate. Finally, it is to be remembered, that direct discrimination by the state was not alleged here, just disparate effect on voting rights ... clearly barred by current voting law as well as basic fairness. Nonetheless, politics yet again has shown to be more important to some than basic justice.

So what did the new analysis bring? Nothing definite. Nonetheless, though Bush spin was yet again that this was all just a waste of time that no one but the press and conspiracy theorists (and Democrats) cared about, important details came forth. First off, it seems Gore probably would have lost anyway if the recount went the way he wanted it (undervotes, statewide or in select counties). Ironically, the overvotes he ignored for largely tactical reasons (fear it would be seen as too big of a project and perhaps not help him), probably would have gave him the election. Overvotes the Florida judge in charge might just have included, since Bush's lawyers argued that Gore ignoring them was hypocritical and unfair. That is, if the US Supreme Court didn't shut everything down. The count still would not be perfect or exact, but this just shows how a democratic solution (logically ultimately involving the US Congress) was so important and just how flawed the electoral process truly was.

Furthermore, even for those overvotes done in a way that the voter's choice could not be determined (using Florida's intent of the voter standards, as seemed to be dictated by law), a statistical analysis (and common sense) showed Gore would have got most of them. Problems with confusing ballots (punch card and scanning by old and young voters, though again blacks disproportionately were hurt in various areas) was also shown. Therefore, the media analysis put forth some rather interesting details on mistaken assumptions, the failure to obtain true democracy (few were without sin in this regard), and the overall importance of not sticking our heads in the sand because things seem too complicated or just to tedious to care about any more.

Deja Vu. That is how people felt in September, 2002, when yet again we heard of problems in the primary elections, a close race in which Janet Reno lost to Bill McBride. Yet again, a disproportionate number of minorities were burdened by flaws in the election procedure. Miami and Broward counties again was in the thick of things, this time because for some reason election officials in those areas were not properly trained to handle the new voting machines. Again, various other counties had problems no less troubling, apparently not learning from the first time. The problems apparently did not change the results of the election, but shows that even after you formally reform your election procedures, follow through is equally important.

"Every registered voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are honest, that every vote is recorded and that the rules are consistently applied." So said President Bush (apparently with a straight face) as he signed into law a federal election law ("the Help America Vote Act"). Though funding is yet to be authorized, the law puts in place some key state requirements. States are to: (1) create computerized voting lists (2) improve access to the disabled (3) define what constitutes a vote on the various machines (4) allow people to check their ballots and correct errors before voting and (5) supply a provisional ballot for those whose right to vote is in doubt. New criminal penalties are also put in place for providing false information in registering and voting or conspiring to deprive voters of a fair election (courts partly exempted, I presume). The provisional ballots alone would have solved a lot of problems, and funds to improve voting machines and procedures will be much appreciated ... reform is not cheap.

Some concerns were raised with new requirements that new voters registering after December 31, 2002, will have to provide their driver's license id number (or last four digits of the Social Security Number) before being registered. Various people were turned away last time because of bad records and claims they didn't have the proper identification. This requirement therefore might be misused in some fashion, but the number of mistakes on the rolls suggests some authorization system is surely required. Honestly, if someone wanted to provide false information, the SS number in particular is quite easy to falsify. There is no need for picture id when one votes, though first time voters who registered by mail has to show proof of identity. I think this is fair. Time will tell how much good all of these reforms do (one that was not passed is one that would end the unjust blanket disenfranchisement of former felons, in some cases like in Florida, for life), but I think they are truly a big and important step.

Note: "Bush Signs Election Law Intended to End Disputes" by Robert Pear, New York Times, 10/30/02, helped in the writing of this analysis.

Are we to forget this because President Bush responded well in various ways when the Towers were attacked, and did some good in the job he by various evidence should never had got? I cannot. Al Gore was no saint, but his limited (and yes, partisan, as are most requests for recounts, so one hoped some neutral body would step in) efforts to have a legal recount that was acceptable under Florida law was no match to the cynicism of his opposition, opposition that had a much stronger hand and allies in Florida. Humorist Dave Barry suggests Elian Gonzalez riled up enough Cubans to toss the election Bush's way; such arbitrary reasons that throw close elections are bad enough. When the person who actually gets the most votes loses, and my President (five members of the Supreme Court, Republicans in Florida, the US Senate, etc.) apparently doesn't give a ****, well that's much worse. And, it is rather unforgivable, even if you don't think the winner is a dweeb.