Right it was such a correct ruling and that’s why they wrote into it that it can never be used as precedent.
And gore would have lost based on recount but that doesn’t matter. The decision has nothing to do with jurisprudence and everything with politics.
It wasn’t the correct ruling. Scalia used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to stop the recount. Both he and Thomas had written extensively that the 14th was solely to protect freed slaves. This was the only case that Scalia or Thomas had ever used the equal protection clause to base an opinion on.
It was a purely political decision on ideological lines.
I liked the outcome, but the reasoning was an embarrassment.
Had Gore asked for a full, statewide recount he would have won. His mistake was in cherry picking the counties he wanted recounted.
From when i remember They did a full state recount a few years later. Bush won.
It depends on the type of recount. Gore wanted an over vote recount. Bush would have won that. Gore would have won a statewide recount of all votes.
No that is one spin on how it would have played out. Another spin was that it all depended on how the in questions ballots were called. They have said it depended on who was counting those ballots. One person might have called the ballot for Bush another person might have called the ballot for Gore. Another person might have said can’t tell one way or another.
Was I asking you?
I really don’t understand what you are trying to say? Are you implying that somehow [quote=“SneakySFDude, post:71, topic:14616, full:true”]
Was I asking you?
[/quote]
This is an open message board - anyone can reply to any post they want.
Never happen? It always happens.
Early voting. Outrage will still be fresh.
The ruling was 7-2 on it being an equal protection clause issue.
No, he wouldn’t have. The only way he would have won was to count the over-votes and reject the late overseas ballots.
Likewise, if Florida’s 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. On the other hand, the study also found that if the official vote-counting standards had not rejected ballots containing overvotes (where a voter selects more than one candidate in a race where each voter may only choose one candidate) a statewide tally would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by 60 to 171 votes. These tallies conducted by the NORC consortium are caveated with the statement: “But no study of this type can accurately recreate Election Day 2000 or predict what might have emerged from individual battles over more than 6 million votes in Florida’s 67 counties.”[61][62]
Florida also received an additional 2,411 overseas ballots after the 7 PM deadline on election day. Florida officials rejected these overseas ballots, mostly from members of the United States Armed Forces. By rejecting those ballots, Florida provided Gore a 202-vote lead in the state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on December 8, 2000, overturned these rejections and ordered that all federal write-in ballots previously rejected be counted.
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount.
That is exactly what I said.
No that isn’t what you said, you said he would have won had they simply recounted statewide, you made no mention that they would have had to have both counted every ballot that marked more than one candidate in his favor and also have disallowed the late overseas ballots.
