13 years on what are your thoughts on the U.S. presidential election of 2000?

[Tupac Shakur]

What if high-concentration population centers produce a split, like Cook County and the surrounding collar counties usually do?

They don't, so everything you wrote after this was pointless. Urban areas are Democratic strongholds.

[Guynemer]

I think he meant the suburban counties, which are also starting to lean more Democratic in many metro areas, probably due to the religious right's influence of the GOP.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think he meant the suburban counties, which are also starting to lean more Democratic in many metro areas, probably due to the religious right's influence of the GOP.

They leaned democrat in an election where a democrat won, they lean republican in an election where republicans won (2010), I don't think they're shifting. They're just an indicator.

[-Jrabbit]

They don't, so everything you wrote after this was pointless. Urban areas are Democratic strongholds.

I find it hilarious that you disqualify "everything you wrote after this" in reference to what was a hypothetical question, not an assertion or conclusion. Moreso, the hypothetical comes complete with an example -- which you quoted -- of how it can and does happen in what's thought of as a Dem stronghold.

Sounds to me like you just didn't want to read the rest. Which is fine. I'm not that invested.

[korn469]

They don't, so everything you wrote after this was pointless. Urban areas are Democratic strongholds.

7 of the top 10 most populated states, with slightly more than 30% of the total US population have republican governors. The republicans have also won the popular vote several times in the last 50-60 years. So even if urban areas are democratic strongholds, republics can and do win.

[Tupac Shakur]

Where did I say that the popular vote would make it impossible for Republicans to win elections? I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that it would benefit Democratic candidates, whose supporters are already concentrated in the urban areas that would become the new electoral battlegrounds.

[Guynemer]

I'm not sure how that would benefit the Dems, necessarily. If their spending is focused on urban areas, isn't the GOP likely to pick up slightly more votes in those areas than they are already getting?

[Tupac Shakur]

It's a question of resources. Under the Electoral College, the Republicans don't have to waste any money contesting New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, etc. because the Democrats are going to get the same benefit in terms of electoral votes from New York, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts whether the Democratic victory margin in those states is one or one million. The GOP is free to devote all its resources to turning out the exurban and rural vote in the swing states that actually decide the election.

Under a national popular vote, on the other hand, the GOP would be forced to contest unfriendly urban areas to prevent the Democrats from racking up a large enough margin in cities that efforts to woo exurban and rural voters would be made irrelevant. The Dems would be able to dump money into their urban strongholds (where it's cheaper and easier to reach voters due to population and media density) and the GOP would have to try to match the Democrats' urban push while preserving enough resources to get out the vote of their (relatively more costly to reach) exurban and rural base. The GOP would still be able to win elections, but the road is tougher for them under a popular vote.

[-Jrabbit]

That's it? That's your case? That Republicans will be forced to get out all their voters? OMG that is so unfair, and so unlike what the Democrats would have to do.

Maybe Obama could tell the GOP to check out this new thing, the Internet. I'm told that you can advertise for free there, and that young whippersnappers are big believers in it, and you know the youth is our future so there could be a great opportunity there...

[Tupac Shakur]

Where did I say anything about fairness? Jesus, you're such a ****ing ****...

[Joseph]

Here are my thoughts:

1. Florida should have done a full hand recount, making sure it was very methodical and and thorough.
2. With the election laws as they are, I think that the federal courts shouldn't have become involved.

I believe that a full recount would have probably made Al Gore president, but I can't say for sure because Florida was that close.

Though I think the bigger take away from the election is

3. The electoral college is incredibly undemocratic. If any other nation in the world had an election like the U.S. 2000 election, the U.S. government would probably criticize the results. If we had an ally lose in an election like that, hell we might even try to impose sanctions on the incoming government. Why should a few votes (less than 1/10 of 1% of all the votes in Florida) in one place count more than all of the votes in aggregate?

4. The U.S. because of it's undemocratic system should move away from the electoral college and to the direct election of presidents by popular vote, or some form of popular vote (instant runoff etc.)

5. To ensure everyone has the same vote at the ballot, all election regulations should come from a nonpartisan federal agency. Everyone who votes, should vote in the same manner, following the same rules, with all of the same regulations, laws, and guidelines governing their vote.

I think it was a travesty that the election seemed so messed up on every level. Though even if Al Gore had of been president, there is a good to great chance that not much would look different now. There is a better than even chance that the debt would be at similar levels, threats to the U.S. would also probably be at similar levels, and the economy probably wouldn't be that different. Also the two biggest changes, would be Al Gore wouldn't be associated with an Oscar winning film and George W. Bush wouldn't have built a library.

What are your thoughts?

The New York Times and Washington Post went down and counted the votes. Bush won by 234 Votes. They then counted the vote with dimple etc. and Gore won by about 500+ votes

[-Jrabbit]

Where did I say anything about fairness? Jesus, you're such a ****ing ****...

Actually, I believe I'm the one who called it unfair. You, OTOH, pointed out "the obvious fact that it would benefit Democratic candidates." Which is hugely different. Absolutely right.

Apparently in your world, the use of sarcasm is evidence of retardation. I would call that ironic, but hey, apparently I'm not fit to judge.

[Tupac Shakur]

A stupid comment is stupid whether it's said in a sarcastic manner or not.

[Aeson]

Where did I say that the popular vote would make it impossible for Republicans to win elections? I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that it would benefit Democratic candidates, whose supporters are already concentrated in the urban areas that would become the new electoral battlegrounds.

Yes ... the EC is helping to ensure that Republicans don't have to try to develop a party platform that appeals to the majority of Americans ... and neither do Democrats. Instead they can both focus on appeasing extremists pushing stupid agendas in some select states.

[Tupac Shakur]

The EC actually gives both parties an incentive not to play to the extremes. Picking up extra votes from extremely left-wing people in California doesn't help the Democrats any, while picking up extra votes from extremely right-wing people in Texas doesn't help the GOP any. Both parties have to target their messages to appeal to the population of swing states which, while certainly containing members of both the left and right-wing fringes, are the most evenly balanced states in the country in terms of partisan political leaning.