Can anyone explain why 2000 and 2016 are considered the 'controversial elections' of the 21st century?
I was born in 2000 so I was an infant during Bush v. Gore.
- bluLv 72 years agoFavorite Answer
First of all, in 2000 all of Florida's electoral votes were awarded to the candidate w/ the most Floridian votes. The state is currently in the process to award all the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If this was the case then, Gore would have been president because he won the national popular vote.
In 2000, when all the Florida votes were tallied, it was too close which called for a recount. By this time, it was clear the Florida electoral votes were going to decide the election.
Bush led Gore in Florida by 1784 votes. The machine recount required by Florida law in extremely close elections narrowed Bush’s lead. As allowed under state law, Gore requested hand recounts in four heavily Democratic counties. Not all of the four counties were able to complete their recounts by the legal deadline, even after the Florida Supreme Court extended it. The deadline passed, and Florida’s Secretary of State declared that Bush had won Florida, and therefore, the Presidency.
Gore officially contested the Florida election results. The Florida Supreme Court said that accuracy was more important than finality, and ordered a statewide manual recount. This was not part of Florida law. This was also something neither Bush nor Gore had asked for.
Bush asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the Florida court’s order. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was: Did the Florida Supreme Court exceed its authority by ordering a state-wide manual recount? And, would such a recount be constitutional?
George W. Bush argued that a statewide manual recount would violate the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment says that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Since counties were using different standards to decide which votes would count, Bush argued that Florida was not treating all its citizens equally under the law.
Gore argued that there was in fact a uniform standard for re-counting votes. The standard, as stated in Florida statute, was that a vote would count if the “clear intent of the voter” was reflected in the ballot. Gore also pointed out that there were five times as many “undervotes” (votes where machines registered no vote for President) in punch-card counties than in counties with optical voting machines. Therefore, he argued, the recount standard would actually be more uniform than the standards applied on Election Day.
Federal law required that any controversy regarding the selection of electors must be settled by December 12. On December 12, the Supreme Court agreed with Bush and ruled (5-4) to halt the manual recounts. The Court reasoned, “The standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another….There must be at least some assurance…of equal treatment and fundamental fairness….” Furthermore, it would be impossible for any recount plan to meet the December 12 deadline. The Florida results were final, and George W. Bush would be the forty-third President of the United States.
The 2016 election is controversial because Russia interfered. The Mueller investigation is ongoing w/ sights on getting pertinent details.
"The Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency concluded in a report declassified in January that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system but to affect the outcome.
The agencies said Putin and the Russian government had a “clear preference” for Trump to win the White House. Putin’s associates hacked information, paid social media “trolls” and backed efforts by Russian government agencies and state-funded media to sway public opinion, the agencies said."
- Anonymous2 years ago
Here's a news flash, honey: You're still an infant.
- AthenaLv 72 years ago
No, not that you could understand.
- Elaine MLv 72 years ago
The Wikipedia entry on elections says it all very clearly.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous2 years ago
Bush won 271 to 266 over Gore and the US Supreme Court confirmed the victory.
- 2 years ago
- Anonymous2 years ago
You probably know why the 2016 election was controversial, Donald Trump won the presidency despite getting 3 million fewer votes. The 2000 election is similar. Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, got half a million more votes nationwide but the Republican, George Bush, ended up winning the Electoral College.
In some ways, 2000 was even more controversial, however period on Election night the race came down to who would win Florida and a number of news channels called it for Bush. Gore actually called Bush to concede but later retracted that when his people told him that voting was a lot closer than they had thought. Bush was only ahead by a few thousand votes in a state which should cast several million. A month of recounts and legal wrangling ensued with gorse total increasing every time. The Supreme Court eventually stopped the recounts in a legally dubious decision and Bush one by the incredibly slim margin of 500 votes
- frank lynnLv 62 years ago
Controversial only because the majority of our citizens do not understand that the United States is not a democracy but a republic where popular vote is not how the president is elected. Additionally, the 2000 election demonstrated how ignorant certain sections of society are when issues with punch card voting machines raised its ugly head. I mean I learned how to use that kind of voting system when I was in elementary school and here we had adults in the inner cities of Florida who demonstrated their complete lack of being capable of operating voting machines. That in itself is a strong example of why a republic is better than a strict democracy, where people who are incapable of voting actually vote. The Supreme Court of the United States then had to render a decision on who won the state for the electoral votes. George W. Bush, a Republican, won. That is the only reason it is still called controversial.
- 2 years ago
In 2000 the results of the Presidential election hung in the balance over the controversy of chads. If you're not familiar with what they are, they were the material that was punched out of an election ballot when the voter's choice was made for a candidate. It was before the age of electronic voting when people had to punch perforated holes in a ballot, choosing which candidate they wanted to win.
In many of the ballots in Florida, the chads didn't detach themselves completely when punched out. This created a controversy over the intention of the voter, whether he made a mistake or just didn't completely punch it out. It was a close election where every vote counted. As you might guess, there was fraud involved.
In 2016, of course with the advent of electronic voting, the Left tried to rig the election - which is blatant voter fraud. This opened the door to the war we see against Trump today. The losers (even after fixing the election so they couldn't lose) can't accept the fact that they DID lose and have been trying to take over the administration by force (scandals, false accusations, etc).
- The TaxpayerLv 72 years ago
2000 - Florida was won by Bush; his detractors say that it was stolen from Gore.