LogFAQs > #912103044

Corrik posted...

pxlated posted...

Also yeah the supreme court stealing the 2000 election is definitely in the running for most devastating event in recent american history

Been confirmed Bush would have won regardless of intervention because he had more votes after all was said and done.

This is a decent roundup of studies done:

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

The short version is that Gore was only asking for a specific type of error to be hand counted, and that specific error alone was not enough to push him over, so the supreme court stopping that count did not affect the end result.

However, various studies have been done counting a number of different errors, such as multiple presidents selected (e.g. people who punched Nader and then punched Gore--which is relevant as there was a county where apparently that was confusing). If you count those, then Gore is actually ahead in the state, because a lot more people punched Nader Gore than punched Nader Bush. (This also matches exit polling, which put Gore ahead, so it's not surprising).

Again, Gore did NOT ask to count those, so the supreme court decision did not end up mattering.

The supreme court decision was still pretty awful. 5-4 decision split exactly along party lines. Like...really, supreme court, you can't come to a decision on whether or not recounts are constitutional and everyone is just going to rule with their party? Are you fucking kidding me? Also, ruling against a recount just left a lot of people feeling like the election was stolen; they could have let the limited recount finish, and as shown Bush would have won that anyway, and people would be a lot less angry.
---

Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision