Talk:United States presidential election, 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
 

FEC vs. National Archives[edit]

The popular vote totals given by the FEC, used in this article, are different from the totals listed in the Federal Register, i.e., the totals compiled by the National Archives from each state's Certificate of Ascertainment (see https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html). These certificates are the official documents that each state by law is required to submit to the National Archives. They list the vote totals for each candidate for the purpose of affirming the membership of the Electoral College and may be signed by the governor. Images are available at the National Archives site. The FEC totals for three states are less than the National Archives' numbers for both Bush and Gore: CT (Bush -10, Gore -644), KY (-28, -25), SC (-955, -476). The FEC totals for four states are more than the National Archives' numbers for both Bush and Gore: MD (Bush +73, Gore +1894), NE (+12, +4), OH (+846, +2562), WV (+2, 0). Overall the FEC has Bush with 60 fewer votes and Gore with 3315 more votes than the National Archives count shows. Note that the FEC table states that it was updated in December 2001. That might have something to do with it. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The totals compiled by the National Archives from each state's Certificate of Ascertainment; see https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html). (note: California submitted an amended Certificate of Ascertainment 12/27/2000, with amended vote totals, which are reflected):

Bush 50,456,062; Gore 50,996,582

The totals compiled by the Federal Election Commission (updated in December 2001); see http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm:

Bush 50,456,002; Gore 50,999,897

Jeff in CA (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Election Results Map is the wrong election[edit]

could someone fix that quick, someone put the 2008 election and not the 2000 election :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.151.220 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction about Florida recount in the lead[edit]

The RFC question was rejected as flawed. Alsee (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

Have studies of potential results of a hypothetical full Florida recount reached "conflicting conclusions" or was an Al Gore victory "unambiguous and unavoidable"? — JFG talk 08:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC) There is a dispute about a sentence that I removed from the lead as contradictory and non-neutral. Before my edit and the subsequent revert and tweak, the lead section said:

Snippet A: Studies have reached conflicting conclusions about who would have won the recount had it been allowed to proceed under several scenarios.

And it followed with:

Snippet B:. According to Florida State University public policy professor and elections observer Lance deHaven-Smith, based on "the definitive study of the uncounted ballots", if all the legally valid votes in Florida had been counted statewide, Al Gore would have been the winner. This conclusion is "unambiguous and unavoidable."

So which is it? If there are actually "conflicting conclusions" of various studies about hypothetical results of full recounts, the lead should keep just the first sentence and leave the details of which study says what to the appropriate Recounts or Disputes section of the article. Conversely, if the conclusions of Lance deHaven-Smith's study are considered "unambiguous and unavoidable" (not just by him) then the sentence about "conflicting conclusions" has to go. Please discuss. — JFG talk 08:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not deHaven-Smith's study. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Please indicate your support for Snippet A or Snippet B with a brief rationale.

You have posed a false choice. The passage now reads as this (and had been this way for 24 hours before the survey was put here):
"Studies have reached conflicting conclusions about who might have won the recount had it been allowed to proceed under conjectured scenarios in multiple counties. In contrast, according to Florida State University public policy professor Lance deHaven-Smith, based on 'the definitive study of the uncounted ballots', if all the legally valid votes in Florida had been counted statewide, Al Gore would have been the winner. This conclusion is 'unambiguous and unavoidable.'"
It's not a question of "either-or"; it's "on the one hand and on the other hand", thus pointing out an important contrast. The statement by deHaven-Smith concerns the statewide result from the NORC tabulation, in contrast to postulated sequences of events in county-based scenarios published by the Miami Herald. The "conflicting conclusions" are internal to the Miami Herald studies (it did two of them). The Herald offered up various scenarios based on what might have happened if events had gone in several different directions, some concluding with a Gore win and others concluding with a Bush win. The studies concern two qualitatively different things. The statements are not contradictory. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong question. I think this RfC should be withdrawn, as the problem isn't inconsistency but noncompliance with our policies on verifiability, neutrality, non-free content, and lead-worthiness. Snippet A appears to be unsourced. If accurate, then inclusion of Snippet B without the conflicting studies is clearly non-neutral. In addition, the "unambiguous and unavoidable" quote is unattributed and therefore non-neutral and in violation of WP:NFC as well. It strikes me that Snippet B is also probably too detailed to be lead-worthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Longer comments and alternative proposals should go here.


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.

Popular vote count[edit]

Someone tampered with the popular vote count. Does anyone have the correct numbers and can fix it? Thank you. 69.124.75.169 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

See above under "FEC vs National Archives" for the links. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


Key dates in the election[edit]

Election No. Presidential Election Electoral College Vote Electoral Vote tabulated
by a Joint Session of Congress
Inauguration
54 November 7, 2000 December 18, 2000 January 6, 2001 January 20, 2001

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States presidential election, 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)