The 2000 Presidential Election

Or:

How a mandate from the masses can be found unconstitutional.

 

 

            After 8 years of the largest economic expansion in history, a President whose approval ratings seemed to go up during every scandal, and an extremely partisan Congress, the direction of America’s future was difficult to see. This election was not just about George Bush or Al Gore; it was about the American people exercising their voice in their Republic, and then having it taken away by the Supreme Court.

 

The divisiveness in the country is only apparent when you look at the vote spread between Bush and Gore: Bush received approximately 50,456,169 votes Gore received approximately 50,996,116 votes[1]. The US Census Bureau estimates the voting population to be about 206 million[2], nearly 75% of the total population of 283,537,289. Yet only 105,326,325[3] Americans cast votes (at least votes that were counted…) for president, only about 51% of the voting age population. Although up from an all time low of 49% in 1996, 51% is a dismal performance and worthy of recognition given the tense feelings in the country about this election. While this was billed as one of the biggest elections in American history, all the hype did little more than make the voters sick of the candidates, and the issues.

           

Almost every day and night since 1999 if you’ve been watching the television or radio you’ve seen “talking heads” or so-called “pundits” talking about “issues” and spreading their “wisdom” throughout the land. These “talking heads” take their speaking points (which were developed in some focus group) and attempt to tell Americans what issues are most important to them. How much more absurd could it possibly get? (I was watching CNN the other night, and some pundit was saying that campaign finance reform was not an issue that Americans really cared about. If that was true, how do you explain John McCain’s win in the New Hampshire Primary?) Poll driven politics and focus group catch phrases have turned the process of picking a president into a superficial marketing of character. Issues were supposed to be the big thing in this election; abortion rights, the Supreme Court, and education topped the lists. With the possibility of as many as 4 Supreme Court Justices stepping down within the next 4 years, many liberals cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war, using many fear tactics to scare people into the voting booth. While on the other side, conservatives rallied behind Bush with a fervor not seen since Ronald Reagan was elected. As Election Day started to near, the possibility arose that one candidate might win the popular vote, while the other won the Electoral College.

 

 

            When Election Night was finally upon us, the country watched and waited to see whom our next president was going to be. Early on in the night the various news programs that were covering the election called the State of Florida for Al Gore. At this point it seemed that Al Gore was poised to win the election. Florida, with it’s 25 electoral votes was a must win State for both Bush and Gore, and many people speculated that whoever won Florida would probably win the election (how true!). As the night went on and more votes were coming in it seemed that maybe Al Gore didn’t win Florida, and maybe it was too close to call. So with bemused humility, one by one, the news stations started to take Florida out of the Gore column, and into the “too close to call” column. When most of the precincts had reported in later that night: George W. Bush was declared the winner of the State of Florida and the winner of the election. Al Gore called George w. Bush to congratulate him on winning the election, and headed out to give his concession speech. While he was on his way to make the speech, Gore was told that the results in Florida were too close too call and that he should not concede yet. Gore then called Bush to take back his concession, and wait for all the votes to come in. By the time all of the precincts had reported, Bush was ahead by only 537 votes. As required by Florida law, when an election is this close there must be a machine recount. After the votes were recounted by machine George W. Bush was declared the winner by 537 votes.

 

When the election results were certified on November 26^th in the State of Florida Al Gore contested the certification in Leon County Circuit Court. Gore claimed that the 537 vote difference was the result of “under votes” or ballots cast for president that were not counted by the machine. At the center of the controversy of these “under votes” were punch card ballots and the automatic counting machines. The machines in question read votes by beaming light on the ballot, and where the hole is punched the light passes through and the vote gets counted. However, in some cases (due to voter error) one of these tiny pieces of paper that you punch out to cast your vote, or “Chads”, can become stuck to the ballot, blocking the light’s path causing the machine not to count the vote. Gore wanted a full manual re-count ordered to count all of these votes, and filed suit in Leon County Circuit Court.

 

This case, Gore v. Harris, was brought before Circuit Court Judge N. Sanders Sauls. On December 4^th after 22 hours of arguments and testimony Judge Sauls ruled that a manual re-count was unconstitutional. Gore immediately appealed to the Florida State Supreme Court. 4 days later on December 8^th the Sate Supreme Court reversed Judge Sauls’ decision and ordered manual re-counts of the “under votes” in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Nassau counties. As simple as this process seems, it was not without it’s own controversy. During the counting process one of the questions that came up was: “What exactly constitutes a vote?” since there was no uniform standard this was hardly a simple answer. The debate over “Chads” (hanging, dimpled, or otherwise) and whether or not an impression (or dimple) left on the “Chad” shows voter intent or not. But it didn’t really matter because the next day, December 9^th Bush petitioned and won a stay of the re-count from the Supreme Court, as well as an appeal to the Florida State Supreme Court’s decision this case was titled Bush v. Gore. On December 12^th the United States Supreme Court ruled that the re-count was unconstitutional on the basis that the Florida State Supreme Court failed to create a uniform standard as to what a vote actually was, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment (and there wasn’t enough time to count the votes). This seems a little strange to me, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of the counting, and then ruled that there was not enough time to count the rest of the votes? That night, Al Gore conceded.

           

George Walker Bush was sworn in as the 43^rd President of the United States on January 20, 2001.

           

           

             

What does this Election say about American identity?

 

America is a country of wide and varying extremes of political and social ideologies. If one were to attempt to catalogue, register and explain all of these ideologies in simple terms we would finally have proof of spontaneous human combustion.

 

But I digress.   

 

One thing that I am certain about is that the American People have absolutely no idea how the election process works. The amount of people that I talked to who didn’t understand the electoral process amazed me; furthermore, I was amazed to find out things that I didn’t know about the electoral process (I’ll be the first to admit that I tend to think that I know everything). Another thing most people I talked to said was that the electoral process itself was unjust and completely ludicrous, and I tend to agree.

 

What do Americans look for in a President? What specifically is American about the Presidents we have had? When we look at the Presidents that are widely regarded as “Great Presidents” what sort of American-ness inspired people to vote for them? A cynical way of looking at the answer to this last question (“They voted for them because they were way better than the other guy”) presents a paradox with reference to the 2000 Election. How do Americans pick a President?

 

The way I see it, there are two types of presidents[4]:

 

1)      Type A president is a man who somehow manages to convince the American people that he is less evil than the other guy; this president is more apt to lead with his own vision, and make Americans believe in his leadership and ability to administer the country. Presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton make up this type.

2)      The type B president is one who inspires Americans to work hard and believe in themselves: Presidents such as JFK and FDR.

 

These two guys though…they failed to excite Americans with their vision of the Nation’s future, as well as failing to inspire Americans to better themselves. This

Election was all about one guy being less evil than the other one. Why can we not pick someone with some vision to lead this country? The majority of Americans didn’t like either of the candidates, and the only candidates in the whole process that seemed to excite people were Ralph Nader (yes, I did just use exciting and Ralph Nader in the same sentence) and John McCain. McCain’s win in the New Hampshire primary stunned quite a few people (including President Bush). His trademark issue, campaign finance reform, caught the eyes of many of the disenchanted voting public (In an ironic twist of fate, McCain failed to win his party’s nomination because he wasn’t able to keep up with Bush’s fundraising).

           

            Just by going on voter turnout alone, one can see that about 25% of the voting public is on the right, 25% of Americans are on the right, and 50% (the majority) of Americans are somewhere in the middle, being ignored. Just because middle-of-the-road fiscally-conservative/socially-liberal Americans don’t have a party or fundraisers… doesn’t mean that we should be ignored. Campaign contributions dictate policy, not a mandate from the masses. If this country were to go by a mandate from the masses we would still be trying to find someone to lead this country. The 50% of Americans did not vote in this election…that sounds kind of like a mandate to me. We need to build a country we can be proud of, and to do that we need a person who can unite us together and inspire us to take responsibility for our great Republic. A country as divided along ideological lines as ours is, must take into account that there are more people in the middle than there are on the extremes. While constantly trying to appease one side of the aisle or the other, most politicians ignore the centrists because they don’t have Special Interest Groups: no buck, no luck.

           

            Through this election issues of American-ness, or American Identity, have presented themselves not in an outwardly manner. It wasn’t the protesting in Florida that best exemplified this American-ness, nor was it any of the campaign speeches either candidate gave, American-ness in the context of this election is much more subtle. The outcomes of the various legal battles, the debates, and the horrible scare tactics do not quantify what is American about this process. It is the process itself that exemplifies American-ness; because this process exists, I have the freedom to say that I think George W. Bush is a complete moron. We have the ability in this country to make laws as we see fit, and I suggest we tell all those folks in Washington D.C. what we want to happen instead of waiting for them to screw it all up.

 

Brief Notes and Observations:

 

 

Al Gore/Joe Lieberman:

           

Many in the country rejoiced at the nomination of Joseph Lieberman for vice president; being the first Jewish person to be nominated for that position it was barrier breaking, however other things that factor into his nomination. After 8 years of a scandal ridden Administration, Al Gore needed to find a way to distance himself from Bill Clinton: Lieberman provided a perfect cover. During the Monica Zipper-Gate scandal, while in the Senate, Lieberman provided an umbrella for the Democrats denouncing Clinton’s actions as immoral and disgraceful, but still standing by the President in Democratic solidarity. An Orthodox Jew (this is debatable), Lieberman’s strong moral character provided a strong backbone for the Democratic ticket by not letting the Republicans use Clinton’s scandals as political ammunition. Lieberman’s Jewish-ness also let the Democrats use a weapon that Conservative Republicans had been dogged by for years: God. While the media is quick to lambaste the “Religious Right” one could imagine what would happen if they went after the Orthodox Jews. This double standard gave Al Gore the security of morality, while allowing him to campaign on the economic prosperity of the past 8 years.

 

George W. Bush/ Richard Cheney:

           

While Bush may have been the only Texas Governor elected to back-to-back terms many people questioned Bush’s qualifications to run for president. Perhaps the most telling incident occurred when a news reporter interviewing Bush pop quizzed him on the names of 4 world leaders: Bush failed. Though Bush suffered in the polls as a result of his ineptness, he gained quite a few points when the media attacked Gore for exaggerating the truth.

            Gravitas was the speaking point handed out from the focus groups when Richard Cheney was selected. Since many people questioned Bush’s intellect and ability to lead the country, W. figured that he might as well bring back some of daddy’s friends to let everyone know that he had a few babysitters around to help him potty train himself for the presidency. Though many people chastise Cheney for being too conservative, he certainly added depth and intelligence as opposed to Bush’s shallowness and stupidity.

 

 

Links:

CNN.com’s Election 2000 Coverage  - Includes video clips of speeches and full Election results

 

 

 

Page by: Nick Gallop  © 2001

Questions? Comments? Feedback? Click here.