My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
I hope it’s on audio I can’t read books very well . I’m not a lawyer or judge , however that’s the explanation give in an interview by Scalia , whom I admire him for his veracity and his approach as a textualist . Especially given the complete lack of respect certain politicians and judges have for the constitution, he said many times that his job was to interpret the text , and also he said , there were times he personally disagreed with the ruling but that was the text and that’s the way he voted , he was confirmed 89 to nothing today he would have been Borked ! I also know he wasn’t infallible and other justices disagreed with him and he said that was fine ,what’s more interesting and important was the changes to the legal criminal justice system. When judges like Bazelon and others ,started using the system as a social experiment, saying criminals could be taught to be law abiding citizen. When police and others complained , they dismissed them as uniformed simpletons . I got off topic but it ties in with the problems when people use their own world view to make policy .but the supreme court’ conformation hearings are the worst considering if your job is to apply the constitution and not your own ideology there should be no divisive hearings necessary . Thanks for replying .
Think it's also important to note that Secretary of State Katherine Harris was in charge of Florida's elections at the same time as she was the co-chair of the Bush campaign in the state. Oh, and the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.
I know I'm super late to the party on this, but how many counties in Florida had the butterfly ballots? Wasn't that a huge advantage in Bush's favor also? I believe Pat Buchanan admitted this years later.
Bush v. Gore should have been *clearly* been handled by a recount. In other countries, this would have been impetus for greater protections for poll workers and the independent electoral commission to oversee these kinds of processes
America is weird in many ways. But most of this weirdness could be traced back to its History and Foundation. So I doubt it’s helpful to try to transform it into something else entirely. For example, if there were created a federal election committee in the USA, than lawsuits against federal government would be piled up enormously by the states. Their constitution is also weird, because it’s specifically says about 20th of January as a deadline, though with a leeway if the president elect can’t be chosen. There are many ways to interpret the text
A manual hand count would also resolve most of the spoiled ballots because hanging chads don't render ballots unreadable if there aren't multiple potential selections per candidate slot.
I like the sound effect for quotes. Good idea. I think i might do the same. I've been doing a deeper voice for quotes, and people have been interpreting it as sarcasm, so this is better
Do you agree with the Supreme Court in this case? If the same thing happened in the 2016 election, would the reaction be different? Edit: Yes, I chose to leave certain parts out. I left out the the lack of an alternative method 5-4 argument because I felt it was less important and would only further complicate things. The 7-2 argument about the equal protection clause was more compelling to me.
@@iammrbeat I figured as much, I should have looked up the answer. I am going to do research now to see if this will be avoidable in the future, I would imagine as our demographics and the way we receive news changes we will see closer and closer elections become a new normal, as we just witnessed again in the last election. Anyways. Thanks for the response, I enjoy your videos
What a controversial decision, yes it could have gone on forever, but it did highlight the lack of consistency in the standard of voting at the time. Imagine if the court had intervened in either 1876 or 2016. It would have been just as crazy
It's been quite a while since I read the full decision from the Supreme Court on this, but I think there are a couple errors in your summary. As I recall, the decision that the Florida Supreme Court's (let's call 'em SCOFL) specific decision violated the equal protection clause came down to 7-2. But that wasn't necessarily the consequential decision since it didn't rule out the possibility for a different remedy (such as a statewide recount or setting a single standard for the counties to do the recount rather than letting the counties do their own thing). The consequential decision--and the one that is much more controversial--was the 5-4 decision (where Souter and Breyer joined Ginsburg and Stevens in the dissent) that stated that the recounts must stop simply because they didn't believe such a process could be concluded by the electoral college deadline. It's pretty difficult to put aside partisan biases (though I was just a dumb high school student at the time of the decision) in a case that ultimately decided the result of the 2000 election. But I do think the court got this one wrong because deadlines stipulated in state and federal laws are--in my opinion--of less consequence than citizen's rights to have their votes counted. The court essentially ruled that meeting election certification deadlines is more important than ensuring the state is certifying the correct victor. Ultimately, the 2000 Florida results were really just a tie within any counting methodology's margin of error. But it would have been nice if SCOTUS had agree with the spirit of SCOFL's ruling that counting right is more important than counting quickly.
Yes, I chose to leave certain parts out. I left out the the lack of an alternative method argument because I felt it was less important and would only further complicate things. The 7-2 argument about the equal protection clause was more compelling to me. However, thank you for bringing those parts up.
Yeah. It's Supreme Court Briefs, not Supreme Court Long John(PaulSteven)s. :) I get there are always many many parts you need to leave out. I just thought it was strange to focus on the 7-2 part of the decision even though the court went out of its way to declare that they viewed their role in the case as sorting out a messy crisis and that the decision should not be used as binding precedent. To me (again, different interpretations are fine!), the 5-4 decision is more consequential because it is the one that had an action tied to it (that is, certify the results). The 7-2 decision was basically "all voters have an equal protection right to be counted that is not satisfied by the present arrangement," and the 5-4 part was "all voters have an equal protection right to be counted that is not satisfied by the present arrangement, but that right is voided due to the Florida legislature's failure to create a statute that effectively guarantees it."
No, no, pal. The correct victor is the person who has the most votes according to the pre-agreed upon standard. Not the standard that you want, not that standard that the Court wants. The standard that the State's Legislature authorized. The standard only allows for so much time for recounting, because the process only allows for so many time before a President is inaugurated. There is a limit on how to decide the victor. The electoral college deadline is the deadline, unlike you barbarians, we don't judge law based on consequences, we judge law based on what is actually written.
“But I do think the court got this one wrong because deadlines stipulated in state and federal laws are--in my opinion--of less consequence than citizen's rights to have their votes counted.” But it’s the Court’s job to interpret the law. I tend to agree with you on the relative weights, but it seems to be a problem with the law, rather than the Court deciding incorrectly. But on the flip side, you could imagine a scenario where you’re endlessly counting and recounting votes in an attempt to get the right result.
@@noahboughdy2648 Exactly. The Constitution itself specifies that it be conducted in a timely manner, whereas it does not guarantee the counting of every vote in a recount.
Man I love this series. US elections are so convoluted. Didn't realize it was such a white wash 7-2. We'd potentially be living in a different world had that gone the other way.
Oh crap...yeah I sort of misled. There was a concurrent 5-4 decision I left out to simplify this case. In retrospect, I should have left it in. The bottom line is, the Court appeared political in this case.
@@iammrbeat Yes. You ''mislead''. Anyone who lived through this debacle remembers it was 5-4 and along party lines. You have gutted the impact of the lesson of this event and done a disservice to your viewers and your own credibility. I see you did (at least address the issue in your remarks below the video, but you reasoning is utterly unconvincing and is unacceptable as historical methodology.
+U Haul yeah man we should totally keep a system that could allow a person to win the electoral college and become President with only 22% of the vote th-cam.com/video/7wC42HgLA4k/w-d-xo.html
+U Haul They already do that even under the electoral colleges since it doesn't make sense to camping if you know they're going to vote for you and the rural areas vote overwhelming to the Republicans
@@desireeangelicmelodies8709 They didn't call it too early. It was obvious trump was gonna do this even 3 months ago. This won't even get to the supreme court. All of Trump’s “voter fraud” lawsuits are being thrown out of court due to no evidence (even by some trump appointed judges.)
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 "ThIs WoN't GeT tO tHe SuPrEmE cOuRt!" um, you know that they issued an emergency order to separate the late ballots in that state, right? and it's looking likely that they'll strike down the Pennsylvania court's action to arbitrarily change the rules.
I was in a high school government class that year. We were to track the election and report on it up until election day... except the election didn't end on election day and we had to keep reporting... it was the project that wouldn't end!
Then again, if the winner take all system is abolished, it would be replaced with a proportional electoral system which almost certainly guarantees the same party would control the house of representative and white house.
We don't exactly have a winner-take-all system. That would be actual democracy. What he's talking about is winner of a given state for a presidential election means the electoral voters have to vote for that state's winner, not apportion the electors out according to percentages as some states have their electors do. Technically, the US is a representative republic. Democracies are straight "majority rules," which the ancient Greeks considered "mob rule," and they abhorred the whole notion. We elect representatives and senators to represent us, so we don't actually have a democracy; we have a representative republic. Check out the wording in the Pledge of Allegiance: "... and to the Republic for which it stands...." If we had a straight democracy we would not have senators or representatives and every citizen would have to vote on every piece of legislation, and if we elect a president, then the winner of the popular vote would be president. Yes - "majority rules" aka "mob rule."
Gatlin Grove - Please educate yourself about the difference between a democracy and a republic; even a dictionary definition will do for a start. Read Plato, Socrates, et alia, as well as history about the different forms of government. Pay attention to the words in the Pledge of Allegiance ("and to the Republic for which it stands..."). The US Constitution is written in elementary English, no less, not modern convoluted legalese with loopholes. The US is so far afield of the US Constitution for the last quarter of a century that it wouldn't surprise me if some of our more ignorant "politicians" wanted us to elect Incitatus. We've already had two uneducated idiots in the White House: Dumbya and Drumpf, and two who knew how to speak well, said nothing of value while using poli-speak, and ignored the constitution about which they should have been knowledgeable since Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Obama taught constitutional law at the college level. At the close of America’s Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked by Mrs. Elizabeth Powell of Philadelphia, “Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” [Various versions of the story - the only consistency to it is Franklin's reply: boston1775.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-story-is-told.html ]
@@aspiringretard If the electoral college didn't exist, trump would have never won any election and idiots like you wouldn't exist. Say it all you want, but you are wrong.
@@aspiringretard Cry harder trumpist. Trump's campaign presented no evidence of fraud and every their lawsuit has been dismissed by the state courts due to lack of evidence, and Trump's campaign refused to pay 3M$ for a recount in Wisconsin. Trump claimed there were no Republican poll watchers in PA, but when his campaign lawyer was asked about this by a judge he said they were. I know your logic, my candidate lost= fraud.
I was 14 and just getting a basic grasp on what was going on when this was all happening. It was truly a fascinating time to be a teen just barely starting to form political thoughts. As a suggestion, would you consider doing a video on the pros and cons of the Electoral College?
I read Justice Stevens book Five Chiefs a few years ago. If you haven't read it yet then put it on your list. As a non-american it helped me understand your system. It is clearly written and easy to read. I give it an 8 1/2 out of ten.
Awesome! I finally get to see my favorite supreme court case on "Supreme Court Briefs." The main reasons why it is my favorite is because 1) Bush V. Gore was decided pretty fast. (I understand why many cases take a long time but some of them take quite a few years.) 2) I knew who both the people were before I knew about the Supreme Court Case since one of them were the former vice president and the other person was the first president I can remember. 3) This supreme court case is pretty much all about Presidential Elections which was the thing that helped me discover this channel a couple years ago and I have watched all the election videos and many more Mr. Beat. has made since. PS I love how you made Al Gores and George W. Bushs faces go around in circles.😂
I had no idea this was your favorite. Glad I finally delivered the episode then, and glad you liked their faces going in circles lol. Yeah, making this episode made me miss making that Presidential election series. Unfortunately I'll have to wait until 2021 to make the next one.
I can see a few other ways this could've gone about: 1) Recount allowed until December 14th, at which point the state must certify the votes tallied to date. 2) Recount allowed, and Florida gets until January 5th to elect a President. 3) If the State is unable to certify its votes by its own deadline, it must estimate the percentage of the remaining votes.
I clicked on this video so fast when I saw it in my sub box. LOVE this series. Regarding your question, people would be going hysterical if this was the case that decided Trump’s election.
I agree, but what should it be replaced with? I would suggest having elections based on our 435 congressional districts. I hear people who defend the electoral college saying that California and New York would decide every election. I don't know if that's true though.
I love this series! Can you do South Dakota vs Wayfair next? I think this case has gone under the radar and a lot of folks aren’t aware of its implications.
No. did you not watch the video? it was a very specific thing where bush only won florida by 500 votes, they had like hole puncher ballots that didnt work. My guy, the judges involved in the gore case regret it. Biden flipped 5 red states while maintaining the clinton states. It is very unlikely this will happen again, absolutely delusional if you think otherwise
Also It has to go to lower courts before it goes to the supreme court. so far the arizona, michigan, georgia, and wisconsin courts already threw out trumps bs claims that are rooted in conspiracy
@@Thatsourjess yeah biden flipped 5 states where trump was leading that had 90% votes in, flipping all states at 3 am the next day with no increase in trump votes but tens of thousands of biden votes, not to mention the videos of hundreds of real ballots being dumped or burned, but over throwing democracy is okay because the funny information screen in your pocket and livibg room say orang man bad voter fraud #deboonked
Except that isn't court-worthy evidence in the slightest. The burden of proof is on Trump's campaign, not Biden's since they're the accusors. You can't win cases on "but how can you prove there WASN'T voter fraud??" In fact, most of their cases have been predicated off angry poll-watchers or hearsay, neither of which is has gotten past a single Judge yet.
Here I am today laughing at how in only 20 years we are back to this in America. Wow! Thanks for your explanation, the online legal rhetoric was hard to follow
And pretty much every other Florida official was a Republican at the time. Katherine Harris, frank brogan, Richard Doran, Robert Milligan, the state senate and house were a majority Republican and the Supreme Court was also Republican majority as well. Someone should tell trumptards this is what election fraud looks like.
People love to make hay about Bush winning FL and NH by such narrow margins, but it's worth pointing out Gore only won WI, IA, NM, MN,PA, and OR by an extremely narrow margins.
Wisconsin was stolen. There was lots of voter fraud in Milwaukee there were more votes cast then voters it's why we eventually got photo ID which prevents that. Democrats oppose photo ID. It was my vote that was cancelled out that election it's the Democrats that support voter suppression.
Although there were legitimate issues to debate about in the 2000 election (Florida's different method of recounts per district, Florida's unusual butterfly ballots, the SC decision) the pop. vote is totally irrelevant to those issues at hand. The popular vote was pretty irrelevant before then.
Yeah, we in NH made a huge mistake voting for Bush. He claimed he was a fiscal conservative, the voters bought into it, and then he spent trillions of dollars on useless wars.
@@redact2186 It won't. Trump's lawsuits are currently 0-11 & have all been dismissed (some even by trump appointed judges.) Whining about non-existent voter fraud with no evidence won't get you anywhere. Bush v gore only stopped a recount in 1 state while Bush was ahead by 500 votes. This time Biden is ahead by 10,000+ votes in multiple states.
I loved your point about the SCOTUS stance on Federalism in this case. Guarantee they would've allowed a recount if Gore won it narrowly and Bush asked for it.
All the sources I'm seeing say the Supreme Court was split 5-4 republicans voting on one side while dems voting in union, no 2 dems going over. Am I missing something?
The court was actually 7-2 Republican, but two of the Republicans were considered liberal. All of the Republicans sided with Bush on the Equal Protection Clause issue, while the two Democrats dissented. The liberal Republican justices disagreed with the conservative Republicans on the remedy (ie: the whole “no recount can be done at all” part of the decision). That decision was 5-4 conservative vs. liberal, but not 5-4 Republican vs. Democrat (as two of the liberals who wanted every vote to be counted were Republicans).
You might think that because the Supreme Court Case was titled Bush vs Gore. Bush sued in the US Supreme Court to stop Gore’s attempts to change the election results in the FL Courts.
Well this is confusing. I was under the understanding that the vote was 5-4 against Al Gore and looking at Wikepedia that is the case. So what is up with the 7-2 decision mentioned in this video.
This is a huge ADVANTAGE. Imagine if a nationwide popular vote was used and it was within 1,000 or so votes between candidates. the Florida debacle would have been multiplied by 51!
@GeoffreyTButler9096 i dont see why not. hes even said hes made mistakes on it. i havent seen his election series so its probably more in depth in that one
The concurrence in this case is really interesting because it talks about a specific interpretation of the elections clause that the state of NC is arguing makes states immune from their own constitutions when prescribing laws for federal elections. Moore v. Harper look into it
Good job Mr. Beat! You really ignored your bias, which is hard to do on a situation like this. This is the main case( and maybe citizens united too) that makes the court look partisan imo. However I think it was 5-4 in republican do democrat justices. Now with Kavanaugh people will hate the court atom too
Thank you! Yeah, I agree that this is the main case that makes the court look political/partisan. However, it's important to note it was 7-2 and that even liberal leaning justices went with Bush based on really a technicality.
I enjoy that this is in my recommendations on 11/4/20 - Nevada is yet to be declared red or blue, and we don’t know wether Trump or Biden have won the election.
I think Bush was a terrible president but why did they allow Gore to cherry-pick which counties they wanted to make the manual recounts in? The four counties where they wanted the manual recounts to happen voted for Gore with a 36%, 27%, 8% and 6% margin.
People are overlooking something very important about the 2000 election...West Virginia. Those 5 electoral votes cost Gore the election, as Bush flipped it. The last time West Virginia vote Republican was 1984 Reagan. And for years, WV was a Democrat stronghold with the exception of Nixon and Hoover campaigns dating back to 1928. Bush needed Florida's 25 votes, Gore didn't. Had Bush won Florida, but lost West Virginia, Gore would be president.
“Intent of the voter” standard? Is that the best he could do? That we all just look into our hearts to say how we “feel” each voter probably voted? So lame.
Actually, it was controversial amongst legal scholars immediately, with quite a few calling it the worst Supreme Court opinion ever, mostly because of the idea that it couldn't be used as binding precedent. Alan Dershowitz suggests they did it specifically to ensure that O'Connor be replaced by someone Bush rather than Gore chose. Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees. I tend to go for Dershowitz here, but the question is why the election was so close. In my view, Gore was simply a terrible candidate. His idea of persuading people to vote for him was to tell people that cell Q 47 on page 1023 of his spreadsheet said 6.24 instead of 6.27.
Al gore's campaign was very poor, not to mention that Al gore had already been condemned in the Debates, so one would think that George bush already had the keys to the White house in his pocket. The fact is that the Elections were close because more than one vote for Al gore was more than one vote for a third term for Bill clinton.
Im convinced that after this case electoral college reform is dead. 500 votes decided the election, and we still couldn’t take a look at this system and decide that that’s a risk.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Off topic but you should make a video regarding John Anderson in 1980, Jill Stein in 2016 and Ross Perot in 1992.
I hope it’s on audio I can’t read books very well . I’m not a lawyer or judge , however that’s the explanation give in an interview by Scalia , whom I admire him for his veracity and his approach as a textualist . Especially given the complete lack of respect certain politicians and judges have for the constitution, he said many times that his job was to interpret the text , and also he said , there were times he personally disagreed with the ruling but that was the text and that’s the way he voted , he was confirmed 89 to nothing today he would have been Borked ! I also know he wasn’t infallible and other justices disagreed with him and he said that was fine ,what’s more interesting and important was the changes to the legal criminal justice system. When judges like Bazelon and others ,started using the system as a social experiment, saying criminals could be taught to be law abiding citizen. When police and others complained , they dismissed them as uniformed simpletons . I got off topic but it ties in with the problems when people use their own world view to make policy .but the supreme court’ conformation hearings are the worst considering if your job is to apply the constitution and not your own ideology there should be no divisive hearings necessary . Thanks for replying .
"Try to put aside your political affiliation and really think about this one..."
What an optimist in 2018.
And then he utterly fails to do so. I'd call it irony if it weren't so fucking sad.
2020 and nothing has changed.
2020 says hello
2021: politics......politics never changes
@@mbolduchow my guy lmao
Think it's also important to note that Secretary of State Katherine Harris was in charge of Florida's elections at the same time as she was the co-chair of the Bush campaign in the state. Oh, and the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.
Low Energy Jeb
I know I'm super late to the party on this, but how many counties in Florida had the butterfly ballots? Wasn't that a huge advantage in Bush's favor also? I believe Pat Buchanan admitted this years later.
Dude that's wild
Immediately you have a giant conflict of interest right there
Funny thing though in the MULTIPLE recounts Al Gore NEVER had more votes than Bush.
Bush v. Gore should have been *clearly* been handled by a recount. In other countries, this would have been impetus for greater protections for poll workers and the independent electoral commission to oversee these kinds of processes
America is weird in many ways. But most of this weirdness could be traced back to its History and Foundation. So I doubt it’s helpful to try to transform it into something else entirely. For example, if there were created a federal election committee in the USA, than lawsuits against federal government would be piled up enormously by the states. Their constitution is also weird, because it’s specifically says about 20th of January as a deadline, though with a leeway if the president elect can’t be chosen. There are many ways to interpret the text
A manual hand count would also resolve most of the spoiled ballots because hanging chads don't render ballots unreadable if there aren't multiple potential selections per candidate slot.
@@nathanlevesque7812 don't forget the unintelligible aspects of 'dimpled chads' too...the hand recount was a despicable mess.
As soon as I heard the SC were getting involved I knew the conclusion. All pathetic
OC's profile pic is hella weird.
Great video dude.
Thanks man! :D
The Armchair Historian hi
It’s Griff!
Never expected to see you here, Griff
It’s Mr. Censored-a-lot
3:21 “The country never seemed so divided”
2020 election: hold my beer
1860 election oh that’s cute
Not to mention the civil war years.
Forgetting the damn Civil War are we?
1876?
@@seneca983 the result of the 1860 election is what ultimately caused the southern states to secede
6:03 Yes. With social media being so common in 2016, the reaction would be like 2000 on a greater scale
That's what I was thinking too. The echo chambers are more insulated now. There would have been riots.
@@iammrbeat Well well well you were correct
Thank you very much, Mr. Beat - this is another REALLY awesome video. Thanks for the history and knowledge : )
Glad you liked it! :D
Mr.Beat, you’re way better than my history teacher.
Well that means a lot. Thank you. :D
Get your teacher to play these in class!
I like the sound effect for quotes. Good idea. I think i might do the same. I've been doing a deeper voice for quotes, and people have been interpreting it as sarcasm, so this is better
Yeah I've been doing that for years. I put a slight echo on it and put it through an AM radio filter on Audacity.
@@iammrbeat I use AM for some and Telephone for others
Do you agree with the Supreme Court in this case? If the same thing happened in the 2016 election, would the reaction be different?
Edit: Yes, I chose to leave certain parts out. I left out the the lack of an alternative method 5-4 argument because I felt it was less important and would only further complicate things. The 7-2 argument about the equal protection clause was more compelling to me.
Why didn't the feds do a Florida recount?
Something I can say for sure though is that if this had happened to the 2016 election, the tension would've been much more greater.
Because there was nowhere in the Constitution that says they could.
@@iammrbeat I figured as much, I should have looked up the answer. I am going to do research now to see if this will be avoidable in the future, I would imagine as our demographics and the way we receive news changes we will see closer and closer elections become a new normal, as we just witnessed again in the last election.
Anyways. Thanks for the response, I enjoy your videos
Mr. Beat you should do a dual case video on Forman v Georgia and Georgia v gregg
I’m sure that some one mentioned it below, but the final ruling was 5 to 4 and Souter & Breyer were on Gore’s side.
There were 2 decisions. One went 7-2, and the other 5-4.
@@oofoof12814 Imagine being a trump supporter right now....
@@Profligateslayer - But does he walk around with a politicians slogan on his head?!?
Thank you!! How the fuck do you _miss_ that?
What a controversial decision, yes it could have gone on forever, but it did highlight the lack of consistency in the standard of voting at the time.
Imagine if the court had intervened in either 1876 or 2016. It would have been just as crazy
Totally. In some ways, the Court contradicted itself by deciding on something they said the Florida Supreme Court couldn't decide on.
intervened about what
@@nathanlevesque7812 about controversial elections, ones that were disputed, like this one
@@iammrbeatI'm curious who did you vote for in 2000
@@SiVlog1989 Doesn't answer the question. Wackos "dispute" every election. It doesn't mean the courts have anything to intervene about.
Great video as always Mr. Beat!
Thanks so much, and also for your continued support! :D
TH-cam recommended this to me. How smart in this unprecedented times.
It's been quite a while since I read the full decision from the Supreme Court on this, but I think there are a couple errors in your summary. As I recall, the decision that the Florida Supreme Court's (let's call 'em SCOFL) specific decision violated the equal protection clause came down to 7-2. But that wasn't necessarily the consequential decision since it didn't rule out the possibility for a different remedy (such as a statewide recount or setting a single standard for the counties to do the recount rather than letting the counties do their own thing). The consequential decision--and the one that is much more controversial--was the 5-4 decision (where Souter and Breyer joined Ginsburg and Stevens in the dissent) that stated that the recounts must stop simply because they didn't believe such a process could be concluded by the electoral college deadline.
It's pretty difficult to put aside partisan biases (though I was just a dumb high school student at the time of the decision) in a case that ultimately decided the result of the 2000 election. But I do think the court got this one wrong because deadlines stipulated in state and federal laws are--in my opinion--of less consequence than citizen's rights to have their votes counted. The court essentially ruled that meeting election certification deadlines is more important than ensuring the state is certifying the correct victor.
Ultimately, the 2000 Florida results were really just a tie within any counting methodology's margin of error. But it would have been nice if SCOTUS had agree with the spirit of SCOFL's ruling that counting right is more important than counting quickly.
Yes, I chose to leave certain parts out. I left out the the lack of an alternative method argument because I felt it was less important and would only further complicate things. The 7-2 argument about the equal protection clause was more compelling to me. However, thank you for bringing those parts up.
Yeah. It's Supreme Court Briefs, not Supreme Court Long John(PaulSteven)s. :) I get there are always many many parts you need to leave out.
I just thought it was strange to focus on the 7-2 part of the decision even though the court went out of its way to declare that they viewed their role in the case as sorting out a messy crisis and that the decision should not be used as binding precedent.
To me (again, different interpretations are fine!), the 5-4 decision is more consequential because it is the one that had an action tied to it (that is, certify the results). The 7-2 decision was basically "all voters have an equal protection right to be counted that is not satisfied by the present arrangement," and the 5-4 part was "all voters have an equal protection right to be counted that is not satisfied by the present arrangement, but that right is voided due to the Florida legislature's failure to create a statute that effectively guarantees it."
No, no, pal. The correct victor is the person who has the most votes according to the pre-agreed upon standard. Not the standard that you want, not that standard that the Court wants.
The standard that the State's Legislature authorized. The standard only allows for so much time for recounting, because the process only allows for so many time before a President is inaugurated. There is a limit on how to decide the victor.
The electoral college deadline is the deadline, unlike you barbarians, we don't judge law based on consequences, we judge law based on what is actually written.
“But I do think the court got this one wrong because deadlines stipulated in state and federal laws are--in my opinion--of less consequence than citizen's rights to have their votes counted.”
But it’s the Court’s job to interpret the law. I tend to agree with you on the relative weights, but it seems to be a problem with the law, rather than the Court deciding incorrectly.
But on the flip side, you could imagine a scenario where you’re endlessly counting and recounting votes in an attempt to get the right result.
@@noahboughdy2648 Exactly. The Constitution itself specifies that it be conducted in a timely manner, whereas it does not guarantee the counting of every vote in a recount.
Man I love this series. US elections are so convoluted. Didn't realize it was such a white wash 7-2. We'd potentially be living in a different world had that gone the other way.
Oh crap...yeah I sort of misled. There was a concurrent 5-4 decision I left out to simplify this case. In retrospect, I should have left it in. The bottom line is, the Court appeared political in this case.
A much worse world. Thank God the election turned out the way it did.
@@douglasmacarthur702 Iraq, Afghanistan??????
@@iammrbeat Yes. You ''mislead''. Anyone who lived through this debacle remembers it was 5-4 and along party lines. You have gutted the impact of the lesson of this event and done a disservice to your viewers and your own credibility. I see you did (at least address the issue in your remarks below the video, but you reasoning is utterly unconvincing and is unacceptable as historical methodology.
@Brian Han still better than an al gore America
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
~Donald Trump, 2012~
in 2016 he proved that statement to be true
You are going to be happy with a video I am releasing in November. :D
+U Haul yeah man we should totally keep a system that could allow a person to win the electoral college and become President with only 22% of the vote th-cam.com/video/7wC42HgLA4k/w-d-xo.html
+U Haul They already do that even under the electoral colleges since it doesn't make sense to camping if you know they're going to vote for you and the rural areas vote overwhelming to the Republicans
U Haul so you think 500,000 people in Wyoming should pick the president not the 10s of Millions of people living in on the coasts!
I've recommend your channel to my high school history teacher. Hope he uses it in class!
Awesome to hear. I consider it a big honor when history teachers decide to use my stuff in class.
And do not forget US101, Hip Hughes, Mr Bett's class, and Tom Richey! (And Beat and Bett have collaborated o some!)
Mr. Beat you should collaborate with Hip Hughes
Who’s here during the 2020 election dispute?
Me
Me! they called way to early
@@desireeangelicmelodies8709 They didn't call it too early. It was obvious trump was gonna do this even 3 months ago. This won't even get to the supreme court. All of Trump’s “voter fraud” lawsuits are being thrown out of court due to no evidence (even by some trump appointed judges.)
Me
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 "ThIs WoN't GeT tO tHe SuPrEmE cOuRt!"
um, you know that they issued an emergency order to separate the late ballots in that state, right? and it's looking likely that they'll strike down the Pennsylvania court's action to arbitrarily change the rules.
I was in a high school government class that year. We were to track the election and report on it up until election day... except the election didn't end on election day and we had to keep reporting... it was the project that wouldn't end!
the winner take all system making voting in presidential elections near pointless if you don't live in a swing state
Indeed
Christian Weibrecht We REALLY NEED to reform this system. Thumbs up to Maine.
Then again, if the winner take all system is abolished, it would be replaced with a proportional electoral system which almost certainly guarantees the same party would control the house of representative and white house.
We don't exactly have a winner-take-all system. That would be actual democracy. What he's talking about is winner of a given state for a presidential election means the electoral voters have to vote for that state's winner, not apportion the electors out according to percentages as some states have their electors do.
Technically, the US is a representative republic. Democracies are straight "majority rules," which the ancient Greeks considered "mob rule," and they abhorred the whole notion. We elect representatives and senators to represent us, so we don't actually have a democracy; we have a representative republic. Check out the wording in the Pledge of Allegiance: "... and to the Republic for which it stands...."
If we had a straight democracy we would not have senators or representatives and every citizen would have to vote on every piece of legislation, and if we elect a president, then the winner of the popular vote would be president. Yes - "majority rules" aka "mob rule."
Gatlin Grove - Please educate yourself about the difference between a democracy and a republic; even a dictionary definition will do for a start. Read Plato, Socrates, et alia, as well as history about the different forms of government. Pay attention to the words in the Pledge of Allegiance ("and to the Republic for which it stands..."). The US Constitution is written in elementary English, no less, not modern convoluted legalese with loopholes. The US is so far afield of the US Constitution for the last quarter of a century that it wouldn't surprise me if some of our more ignorant "politicians" wanted us to elect Incitatus. We've already had two uneducated idiots in the White House: Dumbya and Drumpf, and two who knew how to speak well, said nothing of value while using poli-speak, and ignored the constitution about which they should have been knowledgeable since Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Obama taught constitutional law at the college level.
At the close of America’s Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked by Mrs. Elizabeth Powell of Philadelphia, “Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
[Various versions of the story - the only consistency to it is Franklin's reply: boston1775.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-story-is-told.html ]
Great video again Mr Beat!
Thank you! :D
Who's here in 2020 thinking history is repeating itself?
I don’t think one state is going to decide the election and Biden won by thousands of votes
@@aspiringretard Lose = Fraud
@@aspiringretard If the electoral college didn't exist, trump would have never won any election and idiots like you wouldn't exist. Say it all you want, but you are wrong.
@@aspiringretard You're the one on copium buddy
@@aspiringretard Cry harder trumpist. Trump's campaign presented no evidence of fraud and every their lawsuit has been dismissed by the state courts due to lack of evidence, and Trump's campaign refused to pay 3M$ for a recount in Wisconsin. Trump claimed there were no Republican poll watchers in PA, but when his campaign lawyer was asked about this by a judge he said they were. I know your logic, my candidate lost= fraud.
People saying this is 2020 obviously didn't watch the video.
True. They somehow think stopping a recount = the Supreme court is gonna hand Trump the Win when he's behind in 4+ states he needs.
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 But what if they prove that these states had literally voter fraud?
@@MrBruh-yb9qi
Why didn't Trump's lawyers prove it the lower courts then? Better yet, why did they refuse to even charge anyone with voter fraud?
" Man, Florida law sais a lot" ... laughed more than I should had
I was 14 and just getting a basic grasp on what was going on when this was all happening. It was truly a fascinating time to be a teen just barely starting to form political thoughts. As a suggestion, would you consider doing a video on the pros and cons of the Electoral College?
I don't think there's a single pro to the electoral college
@@Shadow_Gliderabsolutely there is. Mr beat better get on it though I'd love to see it all spelled out
Here as we prepare to see a possible repeat in 2020
lmao 2020 wasn't even close. Any allegation of fraud was immediately dismissed by the courts 🤣
I read Justice Stevens book Five Chiefs a few years ago. If you haven't read it yet then put it on your list. As a non-american it helped me understand your system. It is clearly written and easy to read. I give it an 8 1/2 out of ten.
Yep, I read it, too. It was a fun read indeed.
Awesome! I finally get to see my favorite supreme court case on "Supreme Court Briefs." The main reasons why it is my favorite is because 1) Bush V. Gore was decided pretty fast. (I understand why many cases take a long time but some of them take quite a few years.) 2) I knew who both the people were before I knew about the Supreme Court Case since one of them were the former vice president and the other person was the first president I can remember. 3) This supreme court case is pretty much all about Presidential Elections which was the thing that helped me discover this channel a couple years ago and I have watched all the election videos and many more Mr. Beat. has made since. PS I love how you made Al Gores and George W. Bushs faces go around in circles.😂
I had no idea this was your favorite. Glad I finally delivered the episode then, and glad you liked their faces going in circles lol. Yeah, making this episode made me miss making that Presidential election series. Unfortunately I'll have to wait until 2021 to make the next one.
@@iammrbeat Good news you don't have to wait any more!
Dude, how can an entire county just quit counting when they are legally required to count?
I can see a few other ways this could've gone about:
1) Recount allowed until December 14th, at which point the state must certify the votes tallied to date.
2) Recount allowed, and Florida gets until January 5th to elect a President.
3) If the State is unable to certify its votes by its own deadline, it must estimate the percentage of the remaining votes.
0:48 Holy crap! Is that John Bolton? I had no idea he was involved in this whole debacle.
Yeah. See that NowThisNews video about his role in Government.
Anywhere there's conflict, Bolton is probably there.
@@TheEndingAbyss True.
@@TheEndingAbyss I imagine Bolton as cracking an evil smile and thinking "How can I bomb some children" whenever some conflict arises
I clicked on this video so fast when I saw it in my sub box. LOVE this series. Regarding your question, people would be going hysterical if this was the case that decided Trump’s election.
* Even more hysterical :D And so glad you like the series!
I actually kind of want to see it.
I'm glad I found your channel, these things are super complex.
Here’s a major example of why we should abolish the Electoral College.
I agree, but what should it be replaced with? I would suggest having elections based on our 435 congressional districts. I hear people who defend the electoral college saying that California and New York would decide every election. I don't know if that's true though.
1:33 thing about Palm Beach County is around 3,500 people meant to vote for Gore when they really voted third party!
I love this series! Can you do South Dakota vs Wayfair next? I think this case has gone under the radar and a lot of folks aren’t aware of its implications.
About to get Bush v Gore part 2
100%
No. did you not watch the video? it was a very specific thing where bush only won florida by 500 votes, they had like hole puncher ballots that didnt work.
My guy, the judges involved in the gore case regret it.
Biden flipped 5 red states while maintaining the clinton states. It is very unlikely this will happen again, absolutely delusional if you think otherwise
Also It has to go to lower courts before it goes to the supreme court. so far the arizona, michigan, georgia, and wisconsin courts already threw out trumps bs claims that are rooted in conspiracy
@@Thatsourjess yeah biden flipped 5 states where trump was leading that had 90% votes in, flipping all states at 3 am the next day with no increase in trump votes but tens of thousands of biden votes, not to mention the videos of hundreds of real ballots being dumped or burned, but over throwing democracy is okay because the funny information screen in your pocket and livibg room say orang man bad voter fraud #deboonked
Except that isn't court-worthy evidence in the slightest. The burden of proof is on Trump's campaign, not Biden's since they're the accusors. You can't win cases on "but how can you prove there WASN'T voter fraud??"
In fact, most of their cases have been predicated off angry poll-watchers or hearsay, neither of which is has gotten past a single Judge yet.
Could you do Kelo v. City of New London? I'd love to see a video on that case.
It will eventually come.
Great Video, as usual, Mr. Beat
@GeoffreyTButler9096 Thank You for your comment. I really do enjoy them, so, that's the phrase I use
Recount (2008) is a really entertaining movie about this. I highly recommend it as it made a dry topic interesting which is not always easy to do.
Great video, good job!!
I'm for state's rights, except in those circumstances where I don't agree with the states actions, in which case:
cue the Supreme Court.
Some of those justices should have recused themselves, since they were appointed by, I don’t know, the candidate’s FATHER
Here I am today laughing at how in only 20 years we are back to this in America. Wow! Thanks for your explanation, the online legal rhetoric was hard to follow
Yep, we learned nothing.
Thanks for teaching the kids today about history. I remember going through this as an adult, it was nuts.
#hangingchads
If this guy's take makes sense to you, you weren't an adult then and you aren't now.
Who is watching after 2020 election?
You forgot to mention George's little brother Jeb and the influence he had in the state of Florida
And pretty much every other Florida official was a Republican at the time. Katherine Harris, frank brogan, Richard Doran, Robert Milligan, the state senate and house were a majority Republican and the Supreme Court was also Republican majority as well. Someone should tell trumptards this is what election fraud looks like.
@@alwillk no argument there 💀💀
People love to make hay about Bush winning FL and NH by such narrow margins, but it's worth pointing out Gore only won WI, IA, NM, MN,PA, and OR by an extremely narrow margins.
Yeah, but I think people love to bring up more how Bush lost the popular vote overall.
U Haul, you should look up a Charisma on Command video on how Trump branded that term “Crooked Hillary”.
Wisconsin was stolen. There was lots of voter fraud in Milwaukee there were more votes cast then voters it's why we eventually got photo ID which prevents that. Democrats oppose photo ID. It was my vote that was cancelled out that election it's the Democrats that support voter suppression.
Although there were legitimate issues to debate about in the 2000 election (Florida's different method of recounts per district, Florida's unusual butterfly ballots, the SC decision) the pop. vote is totally irrelevant to those issues at hand. The popular vote was pretty irrelevant before then.
Yeah, we in NH made a huge mistake voting for Bush. He claimed he was a fiscal conservative, the voters bought into it, and then he spent trillions of dollars on useless wars.
A repeat in 2020?
It won't work
@@redact2186 It won't. Trump's lawsuits are currently 0-11 & have all been dismissed (some even by trump appointed judges.) Whining about non-existent voter fraud with no evidence won't get you anywhere. Bush v gore only stopped a recount in 1 state while Bush was ahead by 500 votes. This time Biden is ahead by 10,000+ votes in multiple states.
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 you have massive fraud this time. Trump's big cases havent even been filed yet. Just wait and watch.
@@aiman_yt lol. Tip: he is currently 1-20 on his lawsuits. Look at what his lawyers are actually arguing & not what he yells about on twitter.
@@senseiadam-brawlstars9465 did you know his head lawyer mistook "pole" for "poll" funny!
Curiously, there was no mention of the Brooks Bros. riots here, or for that matter in Mr. Beat's 2000 election video.
It’s quite something to think about what would have happened if Al Gore would have been president
The federal government should be in charge of federal elections, not the state governments.
I loved your point about the SCOTUS stance on Federalism in this case. Guarantee they would've allowed a recount if Gore won it narrowly and Bush asked for it.
Yeah, that's why this case seemed so political to me, which is important.
I think SCOTUS's decision makes sense. The only reason to recount would be to change the results
Incorrect. The issue was that the state supreme court refused to set a vote counting standard. Everything else is horseshit.
@@mbolduc The dimples and hanging chads thing was so ridiculous.
This video Aged Well❗So here we go with the standard -- "Who's watching AFTER the Nov.2020 Presidential Elections" ❓ LooL
If Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he wouldn’t need all this trouble.
All the sources I'm seeing say the Supreme Court was split 5-4 republicans voting on one side while dems voting in union, no 2 dems going over. Am I missing something?
The court was actually 7-2 Republican, but two of the Republicans were considered liberal. All of the Republicans sided with Bush on the Equal Protection Clause issue, while the two Democrats dissented. The liberal Republican justices disagreed with the conservative Republicans on the remedy (ie: the whole “no recount can be done at all” part of the decision). That decision was 5-4 conservative vs. liberal, but not 5-4 Republican vs. Democrat (as two of the liberals who wanted every vote to be counted were Republicans).
So Florida man has laws? 😮😮
Mr. Beat in 2018: Rarely had the country been so divided
2020: Hold my beer
Man, what a strange course history went down through. Though I’ve seen arguments claiming that without bush we wouldn’t have gotten Obama
And without Obama, we wouldn't have got Trump. Oh snap!
Crooked Clinton?!?!?! I always thought it was Crooked Hillary. Her last name is Hillary.
without bush i think we would still have 2 towers in NYC
Without Bush, I think we’d probably still get Obama in 2012 after John McCain fucks up the economy.
Great video
*Sighs* here we go again....
Lol here because of what is happening
Right lol
Why do I remember it differently? I remember bush being the one wanting a recount because he lost florida, am I wrong or have I been mandela effected?
You might think that because the Supreme Court Case was titled Bush vs Gore. Bush sued in the US Supreme Court to stop Gore’s attempts to change the election results in the FL Courts.
Man, 2016 and 2020 may be more controversial but 2000 was a bigger circus.
We had a bigger clown in 2020
Amazing
I barely remember Bush v Gore, I guess I get to see Bush v Gore 2 in 2020
Well this is confusing. I was under the understanding that the vote was 5-4 against Al Gore and looking at Wikepedia that is the case. So what is up with the 7-2 decision mentioned in this video.
Gotta love the animation
Bush and Gore heads circling each other? :D
Mr. Beat *yes*
"Hey hey hey hey now wait just a minute."
The main disadvantage of USA's electoral system is when a result is to close ot tight as this one in 2000...
*one of the many disadvantages
This is a huge ADVANTAGE. Imagine if a nationwide popular vote was used and it was within 1,000 or so votes between candidates. the Florida debacle would have been multiplied by 51!
could you make a remake of this? i feel like you would do way better on the second pass
@GeoffreyTButler9096 i dont see why not. hes even said hes made mistakes on it. i havent seen his election series so its probably more in depth in that one
The important fact is that Gore never won a single recount, so he had no reason to expect continuous recounts would change the result.
@R S That wouldn't have changed the outcome. It isn't like a recount would have changed what hole the voter punched a week before.
The concurrence in this case is really interesting because it talks about a specific interpretation of the elections clause that the state of NC is arguing makes states immune from their own constitutions when prescribing laws for federal elections. Moore v. Harper look into it
Well.... Now I'm glad Gore Lost. Those 3 counties seemed to delay everything they could to ensure he won.
In their defense, they didn't have the resources they needed to get it done in time.
Miami Dade and Broward are well known for being extremely shady, I bet they were trying to fake votes in their "delay" time
Another issue was judicial activism by the Florida Supreme Court, which was refusing to follow Florida state election law.
Good job Mr. Beat! You really ignored your bias, which is hard to do on a situation like this. This is the main case( and maybe citizens united too) that makes the court look partisan imo. However I think it was 5-4 in republican do democrat justices. Now with Kavanaugh people will hate the court atom too
Thank you! Yeah, I agree that this is the main case that makes the court look political/partisan. However, it's important to note it was 7-2 and that even liberal leaning justices went with Bush based on really a technicality.
I was saying that at the time Breyer and Souter, both liberal went to Bush. I think thi was a little partisan but the democrats switched sides too.
hey it's that dude from let's talk elections
I enjoy that this is in my recommendations on 11/4/20 - Nevada is yet to be declared red or blue, and we don’t know wether Trump or Biden have won the election.
I mean, shouldn't Gore have asked for a recount in all the counties?
Trump v Biden ??
Yes same thing!!
@@karawashington4862 not the same thing. 2020 election was not even close to the 2000 election.
nope
I trust politicians counting votes like I trust holding a rattle snake and trusting it not to bite me.
So Bush V Gore 2.0 with "Its always Sunny in Philadelphia" ft the gang goes to court
I wish you had explained "butterfly ballots" in this video.
I think Bush was a terrible president but why did they allow Gore to cherry-pick which counties they wanted to make the manual recounts in? The four counties where they wanted the manual recounts to happen voted for Gore with a 36%, 27%, 8% and 6% margin.
What a 2 months to be alive, sounds like a hectic time to be alive
If Gore had tried harder in New Hampshire and won that state Florida would not have mattered anyway in terms of who the President ultimately was
He lost his home state of Tennessee.
I think that it shouldn’t be used to convict other cases, but should be used in a singular case
20 years later
Let's do this again
Also, the Elian Gonzalez incident cost Albert Gore Florida.
Al gore did not score in this election O_O
But he certainly did bore. :/
But Bush likes to Bore as well ( oil rigs any one? )
Mr. Beat and I guess forever changed us Lore
People are overlooking something very important about the 2000 election...West Virginia.
Those 5 electoral votes cost Gore the election, as Bush flipped it. The last time West Virginia vote Republican was 1984 Reagan. And for years, WV was a Democrat stronghold with the exception of Nixon and Hoover campaigns dating back to 1928.
Bush needed Florida's 25 votes, Gore didn't. Had Bush won Florida, but lost West Virginia, Gore would be president.
He needed 4 votes from NH
@@person3070 Wow, you are correct. I didn't know NH was also a flip.
“Intent of the voter” standard? Is that the best he could do? That we all just look into our hearts to say how we “feel” each voter probably voted? So lame.
Great video from the uk!
Al Gore was super serial about these recounts
Actually, it was controversial amongst legal scholars immediately, with quite a few calling it the worst Supreme Court opinion ever, mostly because of the idea that it couldn't be used as binding precedent.
Alan Dershowitz suggests they did it specifically to ensure that O'Connor be replaced by someone Bush rather than Gore chose. Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees. I tend to go for Dershowitz here, but the question is why the election was so close. In my view, Gore was simply a terrible candidate. His idea of persuading people to vote for him was to tell people that cell Q 47 on page 1023 of his spreadsheet said 6.24 instead of 6.27.
Al gore's campaign was very poor, not to mention that Al gore had already been condemned in the Debates, so one would think that George bush already had the keys to the White house in his pocket. The fact is that the Elections were close because more than one vote for Al gore was more than one vote for a third term for Bill clinton.
Funny how this is in my recommended now...
Im convinced that after this case electoral college reform is dead. 500 votes decided the election, and we still couldn’t take a look at this system and decide that that’s a risk.
Stop comparing this to 2020 guys. Gore actually had an argument and actually conceded after it was clear he lost.
I'm not defending Gore but didn't he concede before it was clear he lost rather than after?
Not only that Biden won the popular vote by a 4.4% margin and he won over 300 electoral votes.
How TF did the number of votes change that much after one recount?
I came here, prepared for history to repeat itself
It wont