Talk:2000 United States presidential election in Florida

Untitled

I could be wrong here but I'm questioning the validity of this statement.

"If the board discovered an error, they were then authorized to recount the ballots. [3]

The canvassing board did not discover any errors in the tabulation process in the initial mandated recount."

First of all, which canvassing board are we reffering to? One can't just say "the canvasing board." Obviously some of the canvassing boards thought a recount was in order. It is worth checking if Florida law allowed for recounts in any other circumstances other than error. This issue has been contested in the past, I'm not sure of the correct answer. Finally the second external link on the 2000 election page is "Full Video of how the 2000 Elections Were Stolen." This is very partisan to be listed as the #2 external link. Efficiency84 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

County by County votes

Buchanan's votes are almost entirely gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.100.85 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Totally agree. The votes for Bush and Gore add up to the mentioned totals. The votes for Nader are low. For Buchanan, it's completely off. Especially the value for Palm Beach Country (butterfly ballot) is of historic significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.126.183 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in Timeline Section

Discussing the ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore....

"This ruling stopped the vote recount, allowing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner."

This statement in incorrect. Bush was certified the winner of the state of Florida on November 26, 2000, not December 12, of the same year.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/26/presidential.election/index.html

The author leads us to believe that the Supreme Court's decision made Bush the winner. That is false on two levels. First, as I pointed out, Bush was already the certified winner of the state at the time of the court's ruling. Second, the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to determine legal slates of electors, not the unelected courts. In turn, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 as to lay out the rules on how to determine legal slates of electors.

No matter what the ruling of the courts, Bush win Florida until Congress says otherwise.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/legal_12-12.html

Rustymustang (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Rustymustang

Topics Not Covered

This article covers many of the events during and after the election, and their impact, but it does not cover factors that occurred before the election that specifically impacted Florida voters, such as:

Republican Operatives Fake "protests" were held by Republican party operatives in order to put pressure on county election boards. Nicholastarwin (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Voters Purges The state hired a company to purge voter lists of people who had been convicted of felonies. However, not only were convicted felons purged--people with similar names were purged as well--especially among minority communities. Additionally, people convicted out-of-state for felonies were purged as well (contrary to Florida law). Nicholastarwin (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky The obvious negative impact on the Al Gore campaign has been covered in general, but not in this article.

USS Cole A lack of response to an attack on the Cole could be one factor.

Elian Gonzalez Pre-Election discussion of Elian impact. 400,000 voters, 14 % shift, is 56,000 additional votes for Bush and against Gore. http://www.sptimes.com/News/110500/Worldandnation/Elian_swings_Cuban_vo.shtml Another pre-election discussion of the Elian impact. http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/elian.htm FIU report of the Elian impact on the 2000 Election and on Gore not campaigning in the Cuban-American community. http://metropolitan.fiu.edu/downloads/battleground_20florida.pdf Textbook excerpt about the Elian impact. "However, in 2000, in the wake of Elián's forcible return to Cuba, more than 80 percent of Miami Cubans voted for Bush, who won Florida, and thus the presidency, by only a few hundred votes." http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9742/9742.ch01.html

Janet Reno Miami and Florida resident that as Attorney General sent armed units into Florida, and Waco.

negative campaigning Negative ads were heavily weighted to one side, giving the Bush team another advantage in a close contest.

Third party candidates If any ONE of the candidates had their votes instead go to Gore, he would have won. the comments about Ralph Nader's impact have been noticed, but it is true of any of the third through seventh place candidates.

I do not feel that these should be added to the timeline, which would by it's location put them at the top of the article, but a section for Other Influences in the Results could be added. I will leave this here to see other's viewpoints before making any addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs)

Hi there! The only suggestion I would make is to make sure that anything added is sourced by a quality secondary source (as some of what you said above is). As is a standard in many articles, if it isn't sourced, it's original research and will likely be removed. The Eliahn sources look fair. On the other hand, the USS Cole point may or may not be true, but isn't justified specific to Florida with a source so it's pretty much speculation. (To say what you have, you need a source that says, basically, 'The lack of response to the USS Cole caused change X in polls between times X and Y, and those polls are sourced here.') Good luck! Skybunny 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Elian Gonzales is the only of those that is really Florida specific. Of course the election was so close that probably even completely trivial things could have made the difference. Blah42 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Image:nytimes.svg

I removed Image:nytimes.svg from the article, on several grounds. The first is that it's somewhat POV, since it only shows scenarios where Gore won the election, while there are other reasonable scenarios where Bush won. More importantly, it's a bit confusing, since it's not totally clear what the bars mean. Finally, the report that the image is based on doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article text. — PyTom 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Parent Article?

What was the parent article for this article?
~ender 2007-06-17 10:57:AM MST

• United States presidential election, 2000 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Roadblocks Suppressing Black Votes

At the time, there was plenty of talk of this allegation, but where did it start? It really needs a better source. Reference note 5 leads to a January 5, 2001 BBC article by Malcolm Brabant, and it certainly is not BBC's best stuff.

The article reports Jeb Bush being served a subpoena to testify before a civil rights commission, but the commission itself is not even named. There are no direct quotes. There is one reference to a claim by Florida State Senator Daryll Jones that Florida highway patrols had been ordered to set up roadblocks in black precincts. There is no information regarding when or where Senator Jones made his claim, where the roadblocks occurred, or who gave the order. This reads like village gossip.--Geometricks 06:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual error in the section 'Controversial issues in Florida'

The following paragraph:

"Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, contracted with a new company (DBT Online Inc.), at an increase of $4.294 million to have the "scrub list"'s re-worked. Nearly 1 percent of Florida's electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters - 96,000 citizens were listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls. (For instance, many had names similar to actual felons, some listed "felonies" were dated years in the future, and some apparently were random.) In some cases, those on the scrub list were given several months to appeal, and many successfully reregistered and were allowed to vote. However, most were not told that they weren't allowed to vote until they were turned away at the polls. The company was directed not to use cross-checks or its sophisticated verification plan (used by the FBI). [9]"

contains a factual error.

The number of citizens listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls was 57,746, NOT 96,000. Even 96,000 people were only .6% of the Florida population at the time, hardly "nearly 1 percent" claimed in the paragraph. The actual 57,746 were less than .4% of the Florida population.

The correct number is listed in the article about ChoicePoint ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint ) and is confirmed by the United States Civil Rights Commission in its official report on the 2000 Presidential Elections ( http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm ), which this article references. This report also gives a different number for the contract with DBT - $3.1 million instead of $4.294 million in the paragraph.

Furthermore, the paragraph in question references the article by Gregory Palast in Salon magazine ( http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html ) as source. (Palast's name is misspelled as 'Palas' in the list of references, by the way.) The article, however, does not contain the 96,000 number. It also does not contain anything about DBT 'being directed' not to use its verification plan.

69.227.2.211 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This still contains a factual error.

The confusion is between the number of citizens on the potential felon list and the number of citizens who were actually remove.

While the number of citizens on the potential felons on the list was 57,746, the Palm Beach Post found that a full 30% (20 of 67 counties) of the counties did not use the list. In their investigation, they found that the number actually removed was 19,398. Of that number, they could only prove that 108 were wrongfully removed because the citizen was incorrectly identified as a felon. Another 996 that were removed were actually felons, but they had been convicted in other state, thus their rights could not be removed by the state of Florida.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustymustang (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rustymustang (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Rustymustang

Recount section bias?

I just wonder why one study (which has Gore winning total recounts) has a huge, authoritative table while the two other studies, with mixed results, don't? We should delete the large table and incorporate it into the article, or make a table for each of the three studies.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this section is clearly biased in Gore's favor. There is not a single study, by any media sources, that check all of the over and undervoted ballots, thus no proof that Gore would have won under any standard. Yet, the article incorrectly states, more than once, that such a study does exist.

What was the actual number of under and overvoted ballots? That number seems to be 179,855.

This number was reported by the Orlando Sentinel on 11/14/2000.

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/floridafollies/FL_articles/spoiledballots.htm

This was also the number used by the United States Commission on Civil Rights. (You will have to get your calculator out on this one, but the numbers mirror the report from the Orlando Sentinel.)

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/appendix/app1.htm

If we look at the numbers used in the cites, we never see a recount of all 179,855 under or overvoted ballots. The closest is the numbers from the NORC, which is 175,010.

Footnote #17, #18, and #21 uses the NORC study's number of 175,010. Footnote #19 uses only the undervote, i.e. 61,195. Footnote # 20 uses the number of 171,908 over and undervoted ballots.

Where is the proof that Gore would have won by 171 votes if one standard was followed, 151 by another standard, ect?

The fact is, none of these studies prove that Bush would have won a manual recount, nor do they prove that Gore would have won. What these studies prove is the difficulty of conducting an accurate manual recount in a race that was this close.

Rustymustang (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC) RustyMustang

voting board of voting? WTF?11111@!!!

The following appears in the "controversial issues..." section

"her dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the"

"convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount"?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I'd edit it if it made any damn sense at all

plzkthx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.93.86 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Results by county totally wrong!

This section needs to be deleted or redone.. it says Bush thrashed Gore in *every* county, and still won by only 537 votes? --ti 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The vote counts have been fixed (but are now formatted ugly again). It was a good faith mistake mentioned at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 31#Florida 2000 election results. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The results by county are still in error. I haven't checked county by county, but I do know that Buchanan received more than 3000 votes in Palm Beach County, yet the article shows 0 votes. Rustymustang (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)RustyMustang

SCOTUS?

Just a stylistic point, but is it entirely nessecary to refer to the Supreme Court as SCOTUS? The addition of yet another unnessecary acronym into an already complicated article does nothing but impair readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.79.93 (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman's role in halting Democrats' challenge to counting overseas ballots

This edit is fully supported by the source, which states that on November 19, 2001:

. . . Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on national television and said that election officials should give the "benefit of the doubt" to military voters.

Until then, the Democrats had conducted a full-scale effort to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures. But on that morning, with Republicans attacking the Gore-Lieberman campaign for eliminating the votes of hundreds of men and women in the armed forces, Mr. Lieberman effectively disavowed the strategy.

"There was some gasping," recalled David Ginsberg, the research director for the Gore campaign, who watched it with other aides at Democratic headquarters in Washington. "People said: 'Wait a minute. That's really off. That's not what we're saying.' We could never effectively communicate why we were right because we got ourselves in a position where it looked like we were trying to throw out military ballots when we were trying to throw out illegal ballots."

(Emphasis added)

How does the source article differ from and not support the following edit? "Full-scale efforts by the Democrats to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures were effectively halted on November 19, 2000, by their own vice-presidential candidate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who appeared on national television and disavowed his own campaign's strategy of challenging such illegal ballots."

It does not. This was a plan by the Gore campaign, and the suggestion that the article somehow "clearly" states that not all Democrats agreed with it (other than Lieberman, obviously) is utterly belied by the article. The reference in the article to "internal differences" among Democrats is in connection with how aggressive they should be "in their approach to Florida's disputed vote" -- that is, their overall approach in comparison to the approach of the Bush campaign. However, as the article expressly states, "the Democrats had their own aggressive and far-reaching plan to maximize Gore votes in Democratic counties, while suppressing likely Bush votes from overseas." (Emphasis added) Jhw57 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This current issue is with your characterization, just as David Ginsberg's quote disagrees with the characterization at the time. The action was to enforce exiting requirements for all overseas ballots. Separate from your edits, the rest of the bullet is entriely unsourced and contributes a certain tone to yours when read in context. I've made what will hopefully be found as constructive edits and if need be we can continue the discussion. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say the quotation from David Ginsberg differs from the edit I made -- he said that the Gore campaign was trying to throw out illegal ballots, not military ballots. Admittedly, the edit was not clear as to why Lieberman disavowed that strategy, and to that end your newest edit is a welcome clarification. I've reworked it somewhat to make it somewhat clearer that Lieberman's statement effectively ended the strategy of throwing out illegal ballots, although I think that is an important point that perhaps could be made more forcefully. Jhw57 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the five major networks?

Under United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000#Controversial_issues_in_Florida the first bullet point says "All five major networks made the incorrect assumption that all of Florida's polls closed at 7:00 p.m. EST, which was not the case." I'm just wondering which ones are the "five major networks"? This probably should be a link to another article if we are going to use this phrase and explain it out. Not that I disagree with it, I just don't know the 5 majors and a quick search didn't help. Strawberry Island (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a redlink to five major networks fails to shed much light on this... it doesn't sound like a particularly promising article title given that the list of major networks has undoubtedly changed over time, and will continue changing in the future. The distinction between TV networks, print media, and online media is getting fuzzier all the time, making the task of itemizing the "major networks" even more difficult. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court

It is frequently claimed that the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court was a strictly partisan one. And indeed it may have been. But I think the following bears noting: at the time, there were 7 registered Republicans on the Court and 2 registered Democrats. How is that along party lines? Matt2h (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

panhandle population

In the paragraph about TV reporting that polls had closed when they were still open in the Central Time Zone, I've removed an erroneous statistic concerning the population of the affected counties. Previously, the article stated erroneously that the panhandle counties comprised "65% of the electorate," but that is inconceivable because the ten affected counties comprise less than 10% of the population (see [1] and [2]). I checked the linked source but did not find the claim about 65% of the electorate, so I removed the statistic from the article.TVC 15 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

Under Controversial Issues in Florida:

"Jeb Bush, the brother of George W. Bush, was governor of Florida, leading some Gore advocates to make various allegations of impropriety, especially due to their joint campaigning for the Republican vote in Florida and Jeb Bush's assurances to George W. Bush that the Republicans would win Florida. While it is typical for sitting governors to campaign strongly on behalf of the candidate with the same party affiliation, it is unusual for the governor to be related by blood to the candidate and in a position to influence the election in his favor. Some democracy advocates have taken offense at his request for the removal of Florida election officials explaining voting/recount law on TV.[clarification needed][citation needed]"

Why is Jeb Bush even mentioned? There is no citation here that he was even brought up as a legitimate concern, nor wasthe Executive Branch of the State of Florida ever considered as an issue in the subsequent Supreme Court case. It was based on the State Legislature and the State Supreme Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The thinking is that he may have had some power over the ballot as it was being cast, like conduct at the polling stations that sort of thing. There were even wild rumors and allegations along those lines. (People being turned away from polling stations or given absurd requirements to enter them. See "Roadblocks Suppressing Black Votes" above.) However I haven't heard anything to remotely substantiate those claims. 68.55.199.40 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do remember hearing in 2000 that he was distancing himself from the election controversy for that very reason (being brother of one of the candidates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Final Certified Results: The numbers don't add up

The table shows the vote totals for each candidate as 2912790 + 2912253 + 97421 + 17484 + 16415 + 2281 + 1378 + 3028 = 5963050. Yet the bottom row of the table shows the total across candidates as 5963110 (a discrepancy of 60). Jzimba (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why I bothered to do this, but anyway, it turns out that if you google 2,912,790 and 2,912,253 (restricting to site:.gov), then you will find some divergent information about the total vote count in Florida in 2000. For example, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html shows 5,963,070. But http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm shows 5,963,110. Meanwhile, http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2000/Table.htm shows 5,963,110 as well.

This last source seems the most believable to me. Assuming it is correct, then the following two changes should be made to the table in this article: (1) Nader's total of 97,421 should be changed to 97,488; (2) Phillips's total of 1,378 should be changed to 1,371. (The bottom row of the table would remain 5,963,110; the changes for Nader and Phillips amount to a net change of (+67) + (-7) = +60, rendering the table self-consistent.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzimba (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The table's current totals are off by approximately 440,000 votes for Gore and Bush totals -- according to the US Federal archives, as listed here: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html. Totals from the US EC page are: 50,456,062 for Bush/Cheney and 50,996,582 for Gore/Lieberman. Maybe I don't understand something but it seems to me clear that the table should be changed to reflect the actual official count ASAP! 97.94.181.31 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

comment about geography

Yes, I see the remark about the incorrect assumption of polls having closed statewide in Florida (when they were open another hour in the far west due to Central Time Zone). Just wanted to point out that it will probably look odd to some people that Florida has both an Atlantic coast and part of the state in Central Time Zone. The time zone boundary runs down the Georgia/Alabama border before it cuts across Florida on its way to the Gulf of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"never undertaken"

I think this should be changed to "never undertaken by officals" but i couldn't find the edit button for that table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampfkegel (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant Paragraph Deleted

A paragraph going on about impropriety for Gov Jeb to campaign for his bro, was deleted. There is no law vs a brother governor campaigning for a brother. Also, the paragraph had no citation to support it. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

Oxymoron Statement

" In a vast minority of cases" -- LOL. I must remember that one; it is funny. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

Recent edits by 2605:6000:9fc0:15:3998:3e0:e909:d23c and Phideaux2014

A series of edits was recently . Much of the added material appears to be original research, or cites dubious sources such as americanthinker.com. I believe these edits should be reverted but thought I should bring it up here before doing so. Do others agree?Wukai (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the edits made specifically in the "Election Night" section should be moved to a new section. They cite reasonable sources, but don't really belong in that section. As for the other sources I haven't had time to look them up but I'm inclined to agree. I don't think theamericanthinker.com can stand weight on it's own, but if it's quoting another source or using another source we should follow up on that and replace the reference. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually - I discovered that the edits to the "Controversial Issues" section was down right copy paste plagiarism from this site: http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?nameid=votefraud I went ahead and removed that at once. I'm going to review the other edits as well. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice work!Wukai (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT:Interesting commentary. How exactly does one "plagiarize" a section when you attribute it in a footnote? I assume you're speaking in strict academic terms, where quotation marks, etc. are employed. But as I've noticed in other Wiki entries in other subject areas, this hasn't always been the practice. Since the individual contributing the information isn't identified, there's no attempt to claim independent credit for the information; thus no plagiarism in the strict sense. The source of the information is clearly identified.

As for the allegedly dubious nature of theamericanthinker.com, you've just inserted your personal opinion into the editorial process. It's one thing to remove an entry because the facts don't hold up to scrutiny. It's quite another to summarily dismiss a source because it doesn't conform to your political agenda. I suppose this give others free reign to remove all citation from sources they find dubious, based on their personal preferences, regardless of any independent review of the facts presented? Phideaux 2014 2/10/15

Per WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY policy americanthinker.com cannot be used as a source. We can use the studies it cites, however. Which I did include based on your edits in the appropriate section. Also - you cannot plagiarize even if you cite the source per WP:COPYPASTE policy. Doing so falls under the category of speedy deletion. If you see other plagiarism either in this article or others, you do not need to get consensus, you can immediately delete it. Just be sure to identify the source of the plagiarism so other users can verify. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: I appreciate the clarification. I haven't seen this same policy consistently followed in other Wiki articles, but I will adhere to it myself and look for other examples of plagiarism in other articles. Phideaux2014 2/11/15

I went ahead and removed the edits made in the election night section as well. Reasons are as follows:

• As noted above, these edits summarize the findings of studies. That doesn't belong in the Election Night section, but in the Post Election Analysis section.
• The Post Election Analysis section already covers the studies referenced by the sources for these edits, making it duplicate information.
• The edits cite conclusions from individual articles / authors, not the study itself. It's misleading to the reader to do this as it implies that the results of the article are in fact the results of the study itself.
• The edits only partially summarize the results. While it includes the major obvious conclusion from the study - that Bush would have won in spite of the recounts requested by Gore - it does not include the additional data supplied by the study. Since this is examined in the Post Election Analysis, it creates confusion for the reader as it seems to contradict what is stated there.

If anyone disagrees with the removal of these paragraphs, please address your concerns here, rather than just adding them back. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT:Prior to January, when I first added some input to this article, it seemed not to be a problem that it was riddled for years with conjecture unsupported by any actual facts (thus the need to insert "allegedly" into several sentences), that many statements lacked citations, that wild charges were made about the supposed motives of individual voters (again without any factual support), etc. All of these insinuated that the election was stolen by the Bush camp, or at best, that literally every so-called problem or issue was an indication of vote fraud, mismanagement, or Republican duplicity. I can't remember a single one that challenged the motives, honesty, or integrity of the Gore camp. Not a single Wiki contributor saw any need to strike or modify these sections. And yet, within days of reminding the reader that every post-election analysis showed Bush to be the winner, that was too redundant or distracting to include. And further, if the supporting facts were there, then the statement had to be removed or questioned because it came from a Conservative source.

I accepted the proposition that Wiki attempts to be an honest attempt to portray the actual facts of the matter. But it seems that the litmus test for allowing information in applies to only one side of the political spectrum. As someone with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 10 years experience as SVP of political affairs for a trade association, 3 years in Washington DC (not including the successful Congressional campaign where I was a senior staff member), as well as my involvement with international politics during the NAFTA negotiations, I have my sincere doubts about the objectivity and legitimacy of the "facts" presented by the NY Times, Washington Post, and major news networks. Should I arbitrarily remove any citations from these sources because I don't completely trust them? I can cite examples, not personal prejudice, for my decisions. I saw no actual reasons for the comments questioning Conservative sources simply because they were conservative, other than they were conservative.

Rather than summarily remove unsubstantiated or partisan claims, I added qualifying language to place them in perspective. But if you folks want to adhere to a universal standard that nothing short of a fully documented, primary source, original research fact will suffice ... as long as it's from a source that I personally feel completely comfortable with, I can accept that too. I fear, though, that this will become a rather small article.

It's not my intention to muck things up with my personal agenda, which is why I made responsible changes and allowed previous dubious entries to remain with additional qualifications so as to paint a more accurate picture. I'd like an honest account of this issue that accurately reflects all sides, not a selectively edited piece that overlooks one side's issues while hyper-focusing on the opposing point of view. Thanks. Phideaux 2014 2/10/15

COMMENT: Again, my intention is not to cause trouble here, but rather to see that an accurate portrayal of the facts are reflected in this article. I've excerpted the following passage from the article so as to place my concerns in perspective:

"One explanation ...

• exactly who's explanation? I can make up a straw man argument too, and insert it in the passage. Why wasn't this challenged? Would I be justified in putting in another hypothetical explanation: that voters actually selected the candidate they wanted? Why is this inconceivable? The butterfly ballot was used in 1996 with no issues. Why MUST there be a problem? The vote tally in congressional districts often change --- sometime dramatically --- from election to election. I cited this as an alternative theory, but it was removed. I also cited a study by The Hill that talked about why/how voters vote. This was also removed. No one challenges that "one explanation" is alleged voter confusion with no actual corresponding study to demonstrate it, other than maybe somebody looked at the ballot in a funny way, but you do challenge the explanation that there was no confusion, even with citations to support that conjecture.

The goal of this should be to explain the controversy to the reader, not take sides. Perhaps if we reworded it to say something like this? "Democrats argued that the unusually high number of votes for Buchanan, and the proximity of his name to Al Gore's confused voters into mistakenly voting for Buchanan rather than Gore. Republicans countered that the same ballot was used in the previous election cycle, and no problems were reported. Plus - Republicans also argued that there's no way to determine that the voter made a mistake based on the ballot." Or something to that affect. I certainly agree the article should in no way treat it as fact that the votes cast for Buchanan were definitely votes intended for Gore. But the article should explain the controversy to the reader. ( I believe this answers your bullet point below as well) CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: I would have preferred to strike the paragraph entirely as pure unattributed speculation. If this is a fact-based article, then there is no reason to give supporting statements to allegedly justify the after-the-fact "problem" the Democrats had with the butterfly ballot. You simply mention it in one sentence with the pro-con positions, and move on.

I don't want to re-litigate the entire issue here, but when you start to talk about Buchanan receiving a higher number of votes than he should, exactly how does one support this statement? I've been involved with actual GOTV efforts and intensive pre-election polling, and I can tell you from experience that numbers for certain districts can wildly fluctuate from election cycle to election cycle. And even when you think you know the turnout and results for a given district for a given election, those estimations can be wildly off.

So, my dilemma is this. I believe that you are sincere in wanting to present as unvarnished a picture as possible of this controversial issue, as I believe you accept that I am trying to raise legitimate points about unintended or unrecognized bias in what has been deemed acceptable entries for this subject matter, and not simply try to be an obstructionist. But a controversy that is attributed to unidentified entities (Democrats? you mean the Gore Campaign after the election, but not before the election when they thought they were winning), and brings up spurious conclusions that somehow Buchanan may/might/possibly have received 'more' votes than he should have because ... well, that's what someone claims without any factual supporting evidence, still has problems in my view. Why not include the equally unverifiable claim that the Gore campaign is alleged to have manufactured votes through voter roll manipulation, or encouraged illegal aliens to vote, etc. All of these claims were made too at that time.

Again, I ask the question, why is it okay to insert the unverified claim that voters may possibly have been confused and voted for Bush in greater numbers than they 'should' have, but not include these assertions:

• In Miami-Dade County some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).

• In heavily Democratic Broward County more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)

• Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties are said to have tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00).

All I ask is consistency. It's not enough, in my opinion, to state an unfounded, unverified charge that voters unintentionally/accidentally selected Buchanan's name, and not counter it with specifics about Democrat voter fraud. Add the three bullet points above (which have citations), and there's some balance in my view. Phideaux2014 2/11/15

... for Buchanan's receiving so many votes is that voters might have accidentally voted for him when they meant to vote for Gore on the so-called "butterfly ballot".

• Again, total conjecture. This is nothing more than an opinion. Not one single person in the ballot box came out and said "I think I made a mistake". It was only after the election was in dispute, and the local Democrat party floated the idea that maybe, possibly, there might be a mistake in voting, was this an issue. By your own criterion this is whole "accident" issue is pure conjecture.

... In this ballot format used in Palm Beach County polling places (but not absentee ballots or other counties), the Democrats are listed second in the left column, but punching a hole in the second circle actually cast a vote for Buchanan, who was listed first in the right column....

• People voting in Palm Beach have no idea what the ballot looks like in other areas. You can only be confused if you are expecting a different ballot. But this is not the case. Again, it's a story, not a fact.

... If the machine loading the ballot did not line it up with the candidates properly, it became hard for the voter to tell which hole to punch....

• And if there was a fire, the paper ballots would have burned. And if a bomb went off, the ballot box would have been destroyed. Listing a bunch of hypothetical "If/then" propositions is meaningless. How many times did this mistake occur? Apparently there is no evidence that it actually did happen. So why are we treated to this as a serious issue. Why not a statement that says "It's just as possible that the ballots were aligned properly?" I have no actual supporting evidence for that, other than common sense that it's more likely a ballot is correctly inserted than not. And yet you will not challenge the "If/accident" scenario, but struck the sentence I included that it's just as possible that people actually voted for the candidate they wanted.

... Voters who punched the second hole would have ...

• Not "DID" ignore, but "would have" ignored "if" the ballot was misaligned due to an error, for which there is no evidence other than conjecture. Again, you allow pure partisan theories of possible mistakes or errors to go unchallenged, and strike any conjecture that everything went as it was supposed to (an equally --- if not more plausible explanation).

... ignored an arrow on the ballot showing which hole was to be punched if ...

• might/would have/if

... the arrow did not line up with the hole correctly due to machine error,...

• although no studies have actually demonstrated that machine error played ANY role in that ballot box

... because the design of the ballot neglected the effects of parallax due to the center row of holes being in a different plane from the two columns of printed names, and the ballot being viewed at an oblique angle.[27]

• This entire 'factual account' relies on a study that says viewing something at an oblique angle might/possibly/could/accidentally result in a possible error that could/perhaps/maybe have affected an individual's vote. Nothing relating to the actual ballot box in the actual election is demonstrated. All there is is pure conjecture. And yet none of you saw any reason to challenge this on the same basis you struck other entries that were "made in an apparent effort to bolster the impression that irregularities in Florida did not contribute to Bush's victory".

My intention, based on the criterion you and others have expressed above, is to strike this entire passage and any others like it. I will suspend this action pending your response. Thanks

Phideaux2014

After a careful review of each of your bullet points I have come to the conclusion that your complaint has more to do with the idea that the buttery fly ballot statements in the article come off as stated fact. They didn't do so for me, but I'm happy with a simple change - let's just frame the paragraphs a little differently so it's clear that this was what the Democrats argued was the case, not what is actually true. Then we can follow it up with another paragraph stating the Republican counter arguments. I think that would be an acceptable change. Do you agree? CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: I appreciate your sincerity. That will certainly clarify matters a great deal. As for the Republican counter-argument, I'm not exactly sure what it is, other than some variation of "I did not beat my wife". It consists, entirely, of (a) Where exactly did that crazy idea come from, and if it was a legitimate issue why did the Gore camp wait until they lost the election to raise it?, and (b) There is nothing supporting these claims other than the claims themselves, so how exactly does one disprove an unsubstantiated innuendo? Shouldn't the person making the charge offer actual proof, rather than simply make accusations of possible wrong doing?

This, in short, is the entire problem with the so-called election "controversy". Every actual post-election recount showed Bush the winner. None of the so-called claims of fraud are supported with any direct evidence; just theoretical possibilities of what may/might/could have happened. The Republicans are asked to defend themselves against unsupported-by-the-facts charges, while the Democrats simply make charges that are not fact-based, but purely theoretical (maybe the machine was broken and voters accidentally chose the wrong candidate, although there is no actual evidence of either).

The neutral thing to do is list the Democrat charges, and follow each charge with a statement that "This charge/observation is pure conjecture, and no direct evidence has been presented to validate this specific claim in this specific instance. Only the theoretical possibility that something like this might possibly have happened has been raised after Gore lost the election. By contrast, the Gore Camp only called for a recount of votes in three heavily Democrat areas, and were content with ignoring any vote fraud or miscounts in the remainder of the State, as well as with disqualifying as many military ballots as they could in the belief that these votes would go to the Bush Camp."

I'm not actually expecting the passage above to be included as written, but you can see how the "Buchanan Vote" issue was not identified as pure conjecture. Why not cite the two examples I included above as simple statements as well? Those charges were made with equal vigor at the time?

On a personal note, I truly appreciate the opportunity for honest dialogue on this matter with you and others. Phideaux2014 2/11/15

I think the Republican counter-argument is whatever they actually argued at that time. I would look up news articles around that time and see what Republican spokesmen were saying in response. I wouldn't try to speculate what the Republican counter argument would be. You can then follow it up with a third paragraph (if you want) citing what studies have shown / concluded about the matter. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Election Night Section

I removed statements in the election night section that contradicted statements in the Recount Irregularities section. Please refrain from providing an analysis of the election in this section as it's supposed to be a simple narrative of what happened that night. Keep analysis to the Recount Irregularities and other sections. Also please double check to make sure the topic you're discussing isn't already mentioned elsewhere. Thanks! CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: Not to be overly argumentative, but there is no such thing as a "simple narrative" for the most unique election in modern-day American history, one that involved issue ranging from the State vs. Federal Constitutional power to decide the outcome of an election, to partial vs. full recounts of a State's vote, to charges that the ballot itself was flawed and, with that, that the motives of voters could be discerned post-hoc, and so on. This is a highly political issue even to this day. Even simple "facts" (the actual vote count) are still in dispute.

To this point, this article, prior to January 2014, was a veritable litany of innuendo about unproven voter fraud, after-the-fact voter intentions and motivations, Republican chicanery, with virtually nothing challenging the Democrat party tactics in voter suppression (i.e. the military vote as the most glaring example, the selective recount as another example, and the changing standards for counting a vote as a vote as the most egregious of all). For years none of this was removed from the article. Only when some of these alleged facts were challenged or put in perspective, did the issue of "providing an analysis" become an issue. Either this is an objective article that holds all sides to the same standard, or it's a polemic about the election. I did not remove even the most egregious misstatements in my first edits; I simply put them in a broader perspective. I have now, however, removed any statement that has not been supported by a corresponding footnote (those where "citation needed" has been in place for at least 6 weeks).

I have not further scrubbed the remainder of the article pending additional commentary from those contributing to this talk section. My only requirement is that every entry receive the same level of scrutiny. To the extent that we are to include our personal preferences about source material and other subjective matters, I will follow the lead set by others. Right now, however, I see more of an agenda at work than an attempt to portray history in a disinterested manner. Thanks Phideaux2014 2/10/15

Anything that is completely without a source can be removed. If you think you can support it with a source, you're also welcome to do that. This article is supposed to simply state what happened. Not get into a needless debate of whether or not the arguments presented by either side were accurate. The edits you provided were citing studies done AN ENTIRE YEAR after the fact. Needless to say, these studies did not occur on election night, hence they should go in the post election analysis section. But, as you look at that section, the studies you cite are already cited in their entirety with the complete results shown. Hence, the removal of that from the election night section entirely. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: Since the controversy over the 2000 Election is entirely conjecture (per my notes above --- not a single Gore claim has ever been substantiated that voters mistakenly chose Buchanan, that the voting machine was broken, etc., that Gore actually won the election), it's misleading to start a controversy-article without allowing the reader to understand there is, in fact, no actual substance to any of the charges that Bush stole the election. Either this, or there should be a disclaimer at the very outset that what follows is a series of unsubstantiated charges. Is this unreasonable? I thought the more neutral way to do this was to simply let the national press make the statement through their studies. But if this is repetitious, then a direct disclaimer at the start of the article that what the reader is about to see is a series of unsubstantiated accusations will suffice in my view, though I think the other approach is less heavy handed. Phideaux2014 2/11/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phideaux2014 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: One other quick question. I'm new to the editing process. You stated above "The edits you provided were citing studies done AN ENTIRE YEAR after the fact. Needless to say, these studies did not occur on election night, hence they should go in the post election analysis section."

Here are a couple of footnotes from the same article, dated 2003-2004. Why were these not removed from earlier sections of this article and put in the post-election analysis section? The 2004 Salon article dealt with voter irregularities. The media studies I cited showed there were no irregularities. The “Memorable Presidential Elections” report was three years after the 2000 election. The studies I cited were 1 year after the election.

^ Palast, Greg. "Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program". (Salon 2004) RECOUNT IRREGULARIES SECTION

^ "Memorable Presidential Elections". The History Channel. Miller Center of Public Affairs. 2003. ELECTION NIGHT SECTION

I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to understand your statement in view of other entries that were older, yet still acceptable in non-post election categories.

I don't feel comfortable enough yet making decisions to remove other people's entries. But given your additional comment that "Anything that is completely without a source can be removed", shouldn't passages like this be removed? There is no citation here: "The actions of the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who was in charge of state election procedures, also came under fire, due to her status as a Bush state campaign co-chairman, her involvement with the "scrub list", and her behavior during the recount crisis. In particular, democracy advocates have taken issue with her antagonizing of Democratic lawyers, her dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach County to convince the voting board to vote down a manual recount[clarification needed] (despite thousands of protesters within the county, including 12,000 with affidavits), and in particular her collaboration with Republican party advisers (at one point housing them)."

Appreciate it.  Phideaux 2014 2/11/15  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phideaux2014 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC) 

The articles themselves were posted after 2000, but the content used simply describes events as they transpired during that particular evening. The content you were posting had to do with conclusions drawn an entire year after the election was over. That's the difference, hope that clarifies.

COMMENT: I'm not quite seeing the distinction. I posted the results of the review of several news organizations of the actual votes cast in November 2000. This was done a year after the election. The two footnotes I referenced were analyses of the same election 3 and 4 years later. They weren't reviews of the actual votes, but analyses/conclusions about the election itself. So, if I put my contribution in the wrong section, they too should be moved to the post-election sections. Correct? Phideaux2014 2/12/15

Perhaps I misunderstood - could you please cite the content from the election night section that you feel is post election night? (Note: Not the source, but the content). I re-read the section and I realized that some of the sentences towards the end should probably be reworded - particularly the part that notes the finality of vote totals. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So, yes, any content lacking a source should be removed or sourced, including the Katherine Harris content you just quoted. According to WP:VERIFY policy, it is recommended that you start with a citation needed tag, so editors have time to try to find a source, plus it makes it clear to the reader that the content is not verified. Then, if after a reasonable amount of time, no one has sourced it. Then it can be removed. Please feel free to tag anything that is unsourced with a citation needed tag. However, just because the article goes a couple of paragraphs without a citation, doesn't mean it isn't sourced. It could just be that the next citation covers all the previous paragraphs (this happens in the post election analysis section). However, I fear that you are right - a lot of content on this article isn't sourced. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: What I propose is that, given the collective comments I've made, someone (you preferably, since you seem to be quite fair) go back through the article and do the following:

(1) Remove all undocumented, unattributed additions or label them as such per your response above, then remove them at a subsequent date if they are not properly sourced. Let's tighten this section so that we are in fact dealing with facts, rather than a series of general complaints about electoral malfeasance (in which both parties routinely engage), or conspiracy theories about stolen elections. This should be a resource for inquiring minds, not a polemic about all things political --- many of which are only tangentially related to the actual vote outcome, and where only one side's complaints are aired. Which leads to the second point.

(2) Where there are allegations made (such as the butterfly ballot controversy), clearly identify them as allegations unsupported by any evidence that they actually affected the election outcome. All of the alleged irregularities here are Democrat charges. There are a number of equally unsubstantiated charges of Democrat vote fraud that have not been included. I can provide these (note: I am not a political partisan, and have no party affiliation; but I am old enough and experienced enough in politics to provide such a laundry list), but I don't think it's helpful to turn this into a 20 page partisan recitation of unproven allegations. However, I think it's equally unfair to only focus on the losing side's charges of political manipulations. So, the choice is either to greatly expand this section with charges that cannot be directly tied to actual voting outcomes in key districts other than by innuendo, or let the unschooled reader understand these are general complaints, not specific information about the actual vote totals.

(3) In my opinion, there needs to be a more forceful statement in the opening paragraph supported by the links I previously provided to the election reviews that not one shred of evidence has ever been produced that the election was actually won by Gore. This allows the reader to place everything else that follows in perspective. To me, it's just a matter of fairness. A 15 year old (even 20 year old) student should have the big picture before he/she gets into the weeds. Otherwise, it's misleading by omission. I can create any groundless "controversy" by stringing together partial or unrelated "facts" that in the end prove nothing, but collectively urge a conclusion that something is really there. If not, why would I list so many "issues"? (Again, I know from first hand experience that this is how politics works. I just want to remove the politics from a professed-historical article).

Does this approach make sense? Again, I appreciate the opportunity to add my input here. But I'm still not confident enough that I grasp some of the finer points of Wiki policy to begin making wholesale, arbitrary changes myself. I will be glad to do this, though, if the consensus is that you'd rather see me put the above into effect. Thanks. Phideaux2014 2/12/15

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: Since some questions were raised about theamericanthinker.com as a legitimate source, I think, for consistency's sake, all Salon references should be struck as well, since it is an equally partisan website supporting the opposite political view. Phideaux 2/13/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phideaux2014 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, again, according to WP:VERIFY they are reliable sources. Furthermore, they are supporting direct quotes of various spokesmen at that time. We can't simple have unsourced direct quotes in the article. However, if you'd like to replace the sources with other sources that support the same quotes, I'm fine with that as long as they're reliable sources. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE CONTENT: What's a fair amount of time to wait for any response to my comments above? Can I assume that if no one opposes the course I outlined in 2/12-13, that I'm free to make these changes by 2/16/15? Again, I'd prefer for someone more seasoned to implement this rationale assuming there are no objections to my reasoning. But I can certainly do it myself if that's the consensus. I want to remain true to the Wiki spirit, but for fairness and consistency's sake, this article needs some serious editing. I agree that my original strategy of leaving dubious content alone and countering it with additional commentary wasn't the best strategy. I think now is the time to seriously clean it up. Innuendo and conjecture (even if "documented" by a Salon article or a New York Times columnist's commentary) needs to be either removed or qualified. Unless there's a direct connection between an allegation and a specific electoral result, it's not a "fact" of consequence. What follows are the changes I would make:

Generally speaking, a few days is a reasonable time to wait. Although it's usually better to wait for input from other users before enacting it. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION

“The process was extremely divisive, and led to calls for electoral reform in Florida.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Strike this passage. Every year people on the losing side of a close election call for abolishing the electoral college, or other so-called election reforms. There was nothing inherently unique about this in 2000, other than it was a particularly dramatic moment in American history. For years Republicans have been calling for the same thing to eliminate non-citizen voter fraud, and other electoral manipulations in Democrat controlled big cities.

I have no problem with that statement, but I'm not married to it. If you want to remove it, feel free. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

CAMPAIGN

“Also, various Northern-born voters from reliable blue states in the Northeast had been migrating to Florida since the 1950s, as well as a growing Asian and Hispanic immigrant population, thus supplanting Republican gains in the state, and putting the state in play in 2000.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Citation needed. ‘Supplanted’ is a relative and personal term. What are the exact figures? This is a conjecture-driven “analysis”, not an objective fact.

No need to ask for permission here, you are welcome to place citation needed tags wherever you feel it is appropriate. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“Also there was heavy backlash amongst the Cuban-American population against Democrats during the Elian Gonzalez dispute, during which Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's Attorney General, ordered 6-year-old Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez to be returned to Cuba. The Democrats' share of the Cuban vote dropped dramatically compared to 1996.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Again, a citation is needed. ‘Dramatically’ is a relative and personal term. What are the exact figures? This is a conjecture-driven “analysis”, not an objective fact.

Agreed. Feel free to add citation needed tag, or work on supplying sources with exact figures. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“This was also a huge factor in the closeness of the final results. It is speculated that, had the Cuban vote remained the same compared to 1996, Gore's chance of winning Florida would have been all but certain given the mere 537-vote difference.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Strike this passage. Speculated by whom? There is not on shred of actual analysis or fact here, just somebody’s personal opinion.

That's fine with me. Either find a source that supports the claim. Or remove it. I'd probably suggest using a citation needed tag, and then give it some time. If no one supplies a proper source, we can remove. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“In 1996, exit polling showed 42% of the voting population in the state were made up of voters older than 60 years old, thus making Social Security and Medicare the top issues in Florida. Polls showed older voters favored Gore 51% to 37%.[3]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Strike this passage. The article itself contradicts this statement: “… the candidates and their campaigns are likely to be disappointed if they think they can swing many votes with appeals to seniors on matters like Social Security and Medicare. Three dozen retirees interviewed in the Tampa Bay area this weekend, for example, showed little inclination to vote as a bloc based on their self-interest, and said that the Bush and Gore plans for Social Security and Medicare left them more confused than comforted.” In addition, it omitted the passage “Younger voters favored Mr. Bush by approximately the same margin.”

I'm fine with the change - but I'd suggest looking into the matter more. If both claims can be supported by sources then per WP:NPOV we should simply cite both and let the reader decide for themselves. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“In late October, one poll found that Gore was leading Bush and third parties with 44-42-4 among registered voters and 46-42-4 among likely voters.[4]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Add this from the same article next paragraph: The margin of sampling error was plus or minus four percentage points, meaning that the race was essentially a dead heat.

Agreed CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ELECTION NIGHT

“There were general concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the voting process, especially since a small change in the vote count could change the result.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Strike this passage. It’s pure partisan rhetoric. The previous sentence already stated the recount was “automatic” under Florida law. This suggests it was done because of “fairness” (i.e. potential fraud).

I would reword it to simply state that once it became clear Florida was going to determine the winner, the media focused it's attention on Florida's count. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“Most of the reduction in the ensuing recount came from Miami-Dade county alone, a statistical anomaly.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Strike “a statistical anomaly”. This is hyperbole. There is no actual factual support for this statement vis-à-vis other Florida counties, or comparative counties in other parts of the country. These are large population areas with well entrenched partisan political operations. Its intent is to suggest fraud without providing evidence of actual statistical manipulations/irregularities. Just as we would not tolerate a statement that implies Democrat vote fraud in voter registration drives provided additional Gore votes, we should not allow these kinds of underhanded innuendos to stand without documentation.

That's fine. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

RECOUNT IRREGULARITIES

“The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election, and several alleged irregularities are thought to have favored Bush.” PROPOSED CHANGE: Rewrite this as “The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election. After the election results were announced, charges were made of some alleged irregularities that were claimed to have favored Bush. These were countered by opposite charges of voting irregularities (from registering non-citizens to vote, to deliberately suppressing overseas military ballots, to constantly changing the criterion to count actual votes) that were said to favor Gore.” Personally, I would prefer to simply end the passage with “The Florida election has been closely scrutinized since the election.”. But if the suggestion is allowed to stand that supposed irregularities favored Bush, the opposite must also be said about the Gore camp.

Multiple different ways to take this. To me the "Recount Irregularities" section is a section that essentially lists Democrat's grievances with the result since, obviously, it favored Bush by a slim margin. We can relabel the section to simply state that it's a listing of Democrat's arguments to the recount, add in Repbulican complaints, or strike it altogether and place any content that isn't already there, into the Controversial Issues section. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ANOTHER PROPOSED CHANGE: Insert this language: “These included the Palm Beach "butterfly ballot," which to some pundits after the election results were announced, were said to produced an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan as a basis for challenging the validity of these results.” I invite anyone to look at the pre-1994 mid term election polling and compare it to the actual results. Great shifts in a district can happen without always suggesting fraud.

“Also noted was a purge of over 54,000 citizens from the Florida voting rolls identified as felons, of whom 54% were African-Americans. The majority of these were not felons and should have been eligible to vote under Florida law”.[8] PROPOSED CHANGE: Employing “theamericanthinker.com” caveat of not quoting from partisan sources, this must be removed. This is a political polemic, not a dispassionate review of the facts (Read the last 2 paragraphs of the article if there is any doubt.) If it stands, it needs a very strong disclaimer to this effect, and Conservative-oriented “analysis” must be allowed to clutter this section as well.

No, that's a valid source. Remember - this is not an endorsement that the statement is true, simply an argument made by Democrats at that time. We should reword so it's clear that this was an argument made by the Democrats - not necessarily true. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“Additionally, there were many more ‘overvotes’ than usual, especially in predominantly African-American precincts in Duval county (Jacksonville), where some 27,000 ballots showed two or more choices for President. Unlike the much-discussed Palm Beach County "butterfly ballot", the Duval County ballot spread choices for President over two pages with instructions to "vote on every page" on the bottom of each page.[10] “ PROPOSED CHANGE: This is not an analysis, it is an opinion piece with selective looks at the facts. It cannot stand without another strong disclaimer. I would suggest beginning the sentence with “In an opinion piece written by the New York Times, which endorsed the Democrat candidate for president, the assertion is made that there were many more overvotes … Otherwise, counter with the Conservative argument that the law was followed, and despite allegations to the contrary, not a single vote has ever been demonstrated to be cast erroneously on the Duval County ballot.

Again, reword to make it clear this is an argument made by Democrats, not suggesting this is a true objective fact. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

“Democratic lawyer Mark Herron authored a memo distributed to Democratic election canvassers on how to invalidate military absentee ballots. The Herron Memo stated postmark and "point of origin" criteria Herron maintained could be used to invalidate military ballots. But the Herron Memo was in line with a letter sent out by Secretary of State Katherine Harris stating that if a postmark was not present on a military ballot, it had to be thrown out. On November 19, 2000, Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on Meet the Press and said that election officials should give the "benefit of the doubt" to military voters rather than disqualifying any overseas ballots that lacked required postmarks or witness signatures. Until that point, the Democrats had pursued a strategy of persuading counties to strictly enforce those requirements by disqualifying illegal ballots and reducing votes from overseas, which were predominantly cast for Bush.[15]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Another opinion article that should be labeled as such.

Again, it was a controversial issue. This is simply stating what happened and who said what. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“The actions of the Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, who was in charge of state election procedures, also came under fire, due to her status as a Bush state campaign co-chairman, her involvement with the "scrub list", and her behavior during the recount crisis. In particular, democracy advocates have taken issue with her antagonizing of Democratic lawyers, her dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach County to convince the voting board to vote down a manual recount[clarification needed] (despite thousands of protesters within the county, including 12,000 with affidavits), and in particular her collaboration with Republican party advisers (at one point housing them).” PROPOSED CHANGE: Complete pop-culture conjecture. No citation. It should be removed or re-written as pure opinion unsupported by actual evidence.

Citation needed tag, Katherine Harris was definitely under fire (whether it was reasonable or not) so there should be a bullet point about it. If no source can be found or supplied, strike unsourced content.CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state, Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, contracted with (DBT Online Inc.), at a cost of $4.294 million, to have the "scrub list"s reworked. Nearly 1% of Florida's electorate and nearly 3% of its African-American voters — 96,000 citizens — were listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls. (For instance, many had names similar to actual felons, some listed "felonies" were dated years in the future, and some apparently were random.) In a small minority of cases, those on the scrub list were given several months to appeal, and some successfully reregistered and were allowed to vote. But most were not told that they weren't allowed to vote until they were turned away at the polls. The company was directed not to use cross-checks or its sophisticated verification plan (used by the FBI).[19]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Another Salon commentary. This is opinion, not dispassionate analysis. Label it as partisan opinion or remove it entirely.

Agreed. Make it clear that this was the argument Democrats used. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“People like Washington County Elections Chief Carol Griffen (1 p.25) have argued that Florida was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring those convicted of felonies in other states (and subsequently restored their rights by said states) to request clemency and a restoration of their rights from Governor Jeb Bush, in a process that could take two years and ultimately was left to Bush's discretion. One should note Schlenther v. Florida Department of State (June 1998), which ruled that Florida could not prevent a man convicted of a felony in Connecticut, where his civil rights had not been lost, from exercising his civil rights.” PROPOSED CHANGE: This link is to a book by the same NYTimes opinion columnist previously cited! It’s a personal belief, not fact-based evidence. It should be removed, or labeled as purely partisan and one-sided.

Same as above CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“A full cousin of George W. Bush, John Prescott Ellis, was analyzing data from the Voter News Service for Fox News and spoke by telephone with both George and Jeb Bush several times that night. It was his decision to call Florida for Bush, with Fox being the first network to do so; Fox had also incorrectly called the state for Gore before the polls had closed, like the other networks, and retracted that call around the same time the others did, around 10 p.m. that evening. Fox only called the state for Bush at 2:16 a.m., shortly after the famous Volusia error was introduced. This error took 16,022 votes away from Gore and gave those votes and more to Bush, producing more total votes in the precinct than there were registered voters. The other major networks announced the same totals within minutes. The error was corrected quickly and the calls retracted one by one.” PROPOSED CHANGE: No attribution. Conjecture and opinion, not fact. Remove it. [Again, if this stuff stays in, you’ll get dozens of Conservative opinion pieces cluttering this article up. There should be the same high standard for all entries, not just one side of the political spectrum].

Same as above CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“Xavier Suarez, who was ousted as mayor of Miami in 1998 on charges of absentee voter fraud, was later elected to the Executive Committee of the Miami-Dade Republican Party. Suarez helped fill out absentee ballot forms and enlist Republican absentee voters in Miami-Dade County for the 2000 presidential election. “Dade County Republicans have a very specific expertise in getting out absentee ballots,” Suarez is claimed to have remarked. “I obviously have specific experience in this myself.”[20] PROPOSED CHANGE: This is a smear, not a fact about the election results. Is it equally fair game to point out the alleged criminality of Democrat governors and party bosses in states where Gore won the vote? This is a polemic, not a true analytical fact.

I think it should be removed. I don't think this argument really had that big of an impression in the national debate. More of a blip on the radar. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“The Brooks Brothers riot: the manual recount in Miami-Dade County was shut down shortly after screaming protesters arrived at Miami's recount center. It turned out that these protesters were Republican Party members flown in from other states, some at Republican Party expense.[21]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Another Salon polemic that suggests an if-then link by innuendo. Democrats traditionally bus in SEIU demonstrators. Moreover, the fact that the recount was “shut down” shortly thereafter (a value-laden phrase) implies cause effect, which is not the case. If the author of this passage wants it reinstated, let him/her state the connection with direct evidence.

Bullet point should be expanded to list both Democrat and Republican arguments about the issues. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“The suppression of vote pairing. In brief, web sites sprang up to match Nader supporters in swing states like Florida with Gore supporters in non-swing states like Texas: the Nader supporters in Florida would vote for Gore and the Gore supporters in Texas would vote for Nader. This would have allowed Nader to still get his fair share of the vote and perhaps get into the Presidential debates while also allowing Gore to carry swing states. Six Republican state secretaries of state, led by Bill Jones of California, threatened the web sites with criminal prosecution and caused some of them to reluctantly shut down. The ACLU got involved to protect the sites, and the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Jones two years later, but by then the election was over. The vote pairing sites tallied 1,412 Nader supporters in Florida who voted for Gore, and if only a few more of the 97,421 people who voted for Nader in Florida had known about vote pairing, the election might have had a different outcome.[22][23]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Wading through this article, its focus is on the legality of vote swapping. It’s not a commentary on the election outcome. The last sentence in this passage (“and if only a few more of the 97,421 people who voted for Nader in Florida had known about vote pairing, the election might have had a different outcome”) is total conjecture. I could easily write “and if only a few less had voted …”. It’s not analysis of the actual election results, it’s pure innuendo. It should be struck as irrelevant to the actual outcome. Even the author of the original article admits they have no idea how or even whether it actually impacted actual votes. All they are concerned about is the legality of the mechanism.

Again, this was a controversial issue that did come up and hit the airwaves. So it should stay. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“The actions of the Florida Supreme Court drew fierce criticism from Republicans, who argued that the court was usurping it's authority and issuing biased rulings in favor of Al Gore rather than adhering to an impartial judicious process. On two occasions in particular, the Florida Supreme Court took actions "on it's own motion" without either legal team petitioning the court to do so. First - it issued a stay of Florida certification on November 21, 2000 that the Gore legal team never requested. [24]” PROPOSED CHANGE: First, as a side note, the section contains numerous misspellings (“it’s” = it is; it should be “its”). As to the substance, the quote above is deliberately misleading. This is the full quote: “The Supreme Court of Florida issued a very brief stay, one paragraph long, that says, "In order to maintain the status quo, the court on its own motion enjoins the respondent, the secretary of state, and respondent, the elections canvassing commission, from certifying the results of the November 7th, 2000 presidential election until further order of this court. It is NOT the intent of this order" -- and not, I should say, is in capital letters -- "it is not the intent of this order to stop the counting and conveying to the secretary of state the results of absentee ballots or any other ballots." Adding all the verbiage changes the whole complexion of the statement.

Spelling corrections are considered minor changes. You don't need to seek permission - if there's a grammar or spelling mistake feel free to correct. And no, the Florida SC came under criticism by many leading Republican spokesmen, including (then) Governor George W. Bush himself. Furthermore - although a court has the judicial authority to act on it's own motion, it was, in the Republican's view, a clear indication that the Florida SC was acting in a biased manner granting things that the Gore legal team was not even asking for. This is the same opinion that was repeated by multiple legal experts at this time across multiple major news channels and networks. Again, it's not our job to decide whether or not the argument is accurate, only to note that it happened. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

“Second - it issued a statewide counting of undervotes that were also never requested by the Gore team in it's December 10, 2000 ruling.[25]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Again, not a real controversy. The court has independent authority to do this. It insinuates collusion or improper action where there is none.

Again, it was an argument made by Republicans. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

James Baker, among other Republicans, accused the Florida Supreme Court of violating long standing Florida law, and used it as justification to take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.[26] Democrats argued that the Florida Supreme Court was simply trying to ensure a fair and accurate count.[27]” PROPOSED CHANGE: Accurate statement on the surface, but “justification” implies something untoward. I’d substitute “as the basis” instead.

That's fine. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

PALM BEACH COUNTY’S BUTTERFLY BALLOT

One explanation for Buchanan's receiving so many votes is that voters might have accidentally voted for him when they meant to vote for Gore on the so-called "butterfly ballot". In this ballot format used in Palm Beach County polling places (but not absentee ballots or other counties), the Democrats are listed second in the left column, but punching a hole in the second circle actually cast a vote for Buchanan, who was listed first in the right column. If the machine loading the ballot did not line it up with the candidates properly, it became hard for the voter to tell which hole to punch. Voters who punched the second hole would have ignored an arrow on the ballot showing which hole was to be punched if the arrow did not line up with the hole correctly due to machine error, because the design of the ballot neglected the effects of parallax due to the center row of holes being in a different plane from the two columns of printed names, and the ballot being viewed at an oblique angle.[29] PROPOSED CHANGE: Strike this. The source is “Jerz’s literacy Blog”, an associate professor of English. It contains no attributions, just his opinions, a couple of references to AP news articles, and reader’s comments.

“Although Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said on November 9, 2000 that "Palm Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold and that's why Pat Buchanan received 3,407 votes there",[31] Buchanan's Florida coordinator, Jim McConnell, responded by calling that "nonsense", and Jim Cunningham, chairman of the executive committee of Palm Beach County's Reform Party, responded: "I don't think so. Not from where I'm sitting and what I'm looking at." Cunningham estimated the number of Buchanan supporters in Palm Beach County to be between 400 and 500. Asked how many votes he would guess Buchanan legitimately received in Palm Beach County, he said: "I think 1,000 would be generous. Do I believe that these people inadvertently cast their votes for Pat Buchanan? Yes, I do. We have to believe that based on the vote totals elsewhere."[32]” PROPOSED CHANGES: This is another Salon opinion piece. If we include it, it should be balanced by the following: • In Miami-Dade County some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00). • In heavily Democratic Broward County more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01) • Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties are said to have tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00).

Please find reliable sources for this, then feel free to include. You have to have a link to the source. Also - write in your own words. Don't copy paste from another site as it will be immediately removed. I'd say something like "Republicans countered that even if the butterfly ballot did cost Gore votes, these were more then offset, by.." etc. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know your detailed thoughts. Thanks Phideaux2014 2/14/15

Note to CoffeeGiraffe:

First, my personal thanks for the time you’ve taken to look at my proposed edits. I always enjoy give-and-take with someone who has no agenda other than to try and produce an objective review of a controversial issue. I’ve been regularly condemned by the Left and Right for challenging partisan opinion that purports to be objective analysis, and it’s heartening to see that, insofar as this is my first entre into Wiki-land, that the editors seem to be genuinely concerned about the same thing I am.

I’ve made most, if not all the changes you suggested. One technical issues, though: I don’t see an “edit” button for the introductory paragraph to make the edit I suggested. This doesn’t allow the sentence “The process was extremely divisive, and led to calls for electoral reform in Florida” to be changed or modified in any way.

Again, thanks for your time. Phideaux2014 2/16/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phideaux2014 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge Request

Shouldn't this article be merged with the Florida Election Recount article? I've never done a merge before so looking for other editors with more experience for guidance. Thoughts on this? CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT: In my opinion, that article should be removed. Many major sections are without citations. Those that are, are weak summaries of the event at hand. Tightening this article we are working on will make it redundant. Phideaux2014 2/12/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phideaux2014 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, regardless of whether we do a merge or delete, I imagine the result would end up the same. I'm not familiar with wikipedia policy on this, so I don't feel like I should take the lead on what should be done. Hopefully another user can help out. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Florida election recount

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The recount process is just a portion of what happened during the election in Florida. Therefore the content on the other page should be included in this one. This has been proposed previously, but it was abandoned for some reason. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 23:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm opening an RfC to draw some attention to this proposal since this talk page doesn't seem to get much attention. Please offer your opinion regarding whether or not this merge should take place. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 16:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Each article is sufficiently long to stand on its own. Nothing is to be gained by merging except to make one almost-too-long article. --Jayron32 16:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reason to merge these two. The recount, although a part of the election, was its own major event. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – Whether or not this proposal succeeds, there definitely needs to be some content reorganized. If the recount process does in fact merit its own article, some content from this article will need to go to the other one, as there is a lot of information regarding the recount on this page that is not on the other page. If it does not, then obviously the content from the other article will be merged into this one. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 23:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per Jayron & Ahecht. Both events separately are notable enough in their own right to warrant standalone articles of thier own. That being said, Eventhorizon51's ideas about the reorganization of content from the two articles need to be taken into consideration as well.--JayJasper (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential election in Florida, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080124154506/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/election/electiontime.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not include Nader in infobox?

While Nader did not get five percent of the vote, he did get far more of the vote than the margin between the two candidates and his participation in the election (and the share of the vote he got) is considered by many to be determinative of the entire election. For that reason, I think that his portion. of the vote should be included in the infobox. C2H6O2 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion is 5%, and Nader didn't come remotely close to that. Given how close this race is, literally any of third party candidates could have swung it. By the standard you lay above, we'd need to include all of them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is this standard stated? I'm pretty much neutral on whether to include Nader here, leaning toward leaving him off. But I can imagine a parliamentary election where the governing coalition depends on a number of small parties, some of which get less than 5%, or an instant runoff election where the order in which minor-party candidates are eliminated is crucial. In such hypothetical cases, it would definitely be advisable to include the decisive parties in the infobox. I don't see any standard specified at Template:Infobox_election. But it does say that the template is designed to accommodate up to nine nominees or parties, which seems as though it would likely include some below 5%. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Voter intent vs legally valid ballot

My understanding is that a key fact of this election is that a substantial number of ballots failed to record voter intent in a way that could be counted. First, the butterfly ballot had a line from Gore's name to the punch hole for PatricK Buchanan. Second, the chads from earlier ballots accumulated in the punch-card holders used in at least one county, so that the chads from later ballots were not detached when the voter punched the ballot. I came to this article to look up how many ballots were in each category, and didn't find it. I hope someone can find this information from reliable sources, and incorporate it into the article. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Stupid white men" as a source

Michael Moore is the opposite of objective and more a far-left propagandist and therefore hardly a credible source at all. 93.206.59.186 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You can ask for a determination at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Donald Albury 01:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Error in Results by CD

I've done the disaggregations, and I found that Bush most certainly won FL-2 in 2000. The official CD redistricting statistics from the state of FL published back in 2000 also have Bush winning FL-2. I'm not sure where Gore's win came from, but it is incorrect.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061002100852/http://www.flsenate.gov/data/redistricting_data/current_maps/current_congressional/PUBC0000_stats.pdf Ednamode7 (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• The cited source (Dave Leip's Atlas) shows CD2 as "too close to call", so evidently that result was preliminary, not final. I made the suggested change after checking the source link given. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting, thanks for letting me know.

  I disaggregated by 2000 block groups and got Bush-129,202 to Gore-127,269, which is almost identical to what the state of FL found. I think it should be changed, but I don't know how to edit it properly myself. Ednamode7 (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)