US Presidential Election 2000
Scott Bennett
Politics and Public Administration Group
27 February 2001
Contents
Introduction The
Contestants
Republican Party
Presidential Candidate
Vice-Presidential Candidate
Democratic Party
Presidential Candidate
Vice-Presidential Candidate
Other Parties
The Campaigns
The Evenness of the Contest
The Geographical Battle
The Clinton Factor
The Presidential Debates
The Issues
Policy
Personal
Nader
The Count
The Media and the Count
Events in Florida
The Vote
Electoral College Figures
Accounting for the Result
The Campaigns
Bush Campaign
Gore Campaign
The Bush Fighting Fund
Gore and Tennessee
The Impact of the Nader Campaign
The Intervention by the Supreme Court
Other Races
Senate
Connecticut
Delaware
Massachusetts
Missouri
New York
West Virginia
Washington
House of Representatives
Governor's Races
Beyond the 2000 Presidential Election
Bush and Congress
Gore in Four Years Time?
Black Americans
The Standing of the Supreme Court
Casting a Vote
The Electoral College
Media Coverage
Endnotes
Appendix 1: Selection of Cartoons from 2000
Campaign
Appendix 2: Chronology of Events in Florida, 7
November-13 December 2000
Appendix 3: Popular Vote and Electoral
College Figures
Tables
Table 1: Final Presidential
Poll Figures
Table 2: Voting Methods used
in 1996 US Presidential Election
Introduction
The 2000 United States (US) Presidential
election was one of the closest and most exciting on record,
featuring exhaustive cross-country campaigning by the major party
candidates, spoiling activity by a significant third party, a
nail-biting count that brought into question the basic electoral
arrangements that have been in operation since the first election
of 1789, and the battles and confusion over the count in the fourth
largest state of Florida. It is likely that the country will
continue to debate this election for some time after the
inauguration of George W. Bush as the 43rd
President.
This Current Issues Brief gives a brief overview
of these remarkable events, touching on the candidates, the
campaigns of the major candidates, the controversy in Florida and
the final result. The 2000 election:
-
- reaffirmed the solidity of the US political system, but
-
- threw new light on the weak relationship that has long existed
between the US electoral processes and the question of government
legitimacy.
The paper concludes that it is highly likely
that many changes to US electoral arrangements will have been made
by the Presidential election 2004.
The Contestants
The names of the men chosen to be their parties'
standard-bearers had long been known.
Republican Party
Presidential
Candidate
As the oldest son of former President George
Bush, Texas Governor George W. Bush (b. 1946) came
from a political family. His political experience was not as deep
as his opponent's, though he had worked in his father's campaigns.
Prior to becoming a political figure in his own right, he had
worked in the Texas oil and gas business, and was later part-owner
of a major league baseball team. He was in his second term as
Governor of Texas, having entered office in 1994. During 1999 a
sustained Republican fund-raising effort on his behalf virtually
guaranteed Bush's nomination in the following year, and despite
surprise defeats in the primaries in New Hampshire and Michigan, he
easily won his party's nomination. Bush brought to the campaign an
engaging personality and a proven ability to work with Democratic
opponents, but an apparently shallow appreciation of policy matters
and an unfamiliarity with foreign affairs.
Vice-Presidential
Candidate
Dick Cheney (b. 1941) served in various
positions in the Nixon Administration, including a period on the
White House staff. He had worked for President Ford, and was White
House Chief of Staff 1975-77. After a period as Wyoming's only
member of the House of Representatives, he was Secretary of Defence
under President Bush, 1989-93. With both Bush and Cheney coming
from 'cowboy' US, Cheney added little in the way of ticket balance.
Some observers believed Bush could have been better served by
choosing a running mate from a large eastern state.
Democratic Party
Presidential
Candidate
The Democrats chose Vice-President Al
Gore (b. 1948). Gore brought to the contest a career that had
been Washington-focused since he was in short trousers and living
in a Washington hotel with his parents, while his father was
serving as Senator for Tennessee. Gore junior represented the
4th Congressional District of Tennessee for four terms
from 1976, and was Senator for Tennessee from 1986 until becoming
Vice-President in January 1993. His strengths included his ability
to deal with the complexities of policy, something that played a
part in his having been a far more active Vice-President than many
of his predecessors. On the debit side was Gore's awkward public
persona, which made him a stiff campaigner, seemingly lacking an
easy relationship with his audience. Despite this, the
Vice-President's nomination as Democratic candidate was never
really in doubt. Gore was seeking to be only the fifth sitting
Vice-President to be elected directly to the Presidency-after John
Adams (1796), Thomas Jefferson (1800), Martin Van Buren (1836) and
George Bush (1988).
Vice-Presidential
Candidate
Gore's running mate was Joe Lieberman
(b. 1942). Born and raised in Connecticut, Lieberman graduated from
Yale Law School in 1967. Apart from some years in private legal
practice, he was a member of the Connecticut State Senate between
1970 and 1980, the last six years serving as Majority Leader.
Between 1982 and 1988 he was Connecticut Attorney-General. He was
elected to the US Senate in 1988. Ticket-balancing aspects of
Lieberman's background included his Jewish religion (no
Jewish-American has been President of the US)(1), his
preparedness to criticise fellow-Democrat, President Clinton, in
regard to the Monica Lewinsky affair, and the fact that he came
from a different part of the US than Gore.
Other Parties
Among the many other candidates for the
Presidency, the only two of any possible significance were
Ralph Nader, contesting as a Green candidate, and Pat
Buchanan, who had gained the nomination of the Reform Party
after a bitter legal battle. It was unlikely that either candidate
could win a state, but on each side there was nervousness at the
possible spoiling effect of their campaigns. In a system that uses
the first-past-the-post voting method, might Buchanan take valuable
conservative votes from Bush, or might Nader siphon off green
supporters who would otherwise vote Democratic?
The
Campaigns
The
Evenness of the Contest
As the Republicans had been active for so long
in the push to gain money and a united candidacy behind Bush, it
did not surprise that for some time the party held a wide margin
over the Democrats in opinion polls. This lead was strengthened
after the Republican Convention held in July-August. Gore's
standing was seemingly hurt by suggestions of doubtful fundraising
practices he had been involved in during 1996, but a strong
performance by the Vice-President at the Democratic Convention in
mid-August saw a marked lift in his poll standing. The candidates
therefore entered the campaign in an even position, something that
was maintained throughout the campaign. Normally, the number of
genuinely doubtful states declines as a campaign progresses, but in
2000 the number increased as Election Day drew closer. In
mid-October the Detroit Free Press described the race as
'a statistical dead heat', and so it remained.(2) For
much of the last few weeks, Bush maintained an opinion poll figure
of approximately 43-45 per cent, usually a few points ahead of his
opponent, though in hindsight it is clear that the polls
underestimated the Gore vote. The final opinion poll figures
clearly indicated the remarkable closeness of the 2000 presidential
contest (Table 1).
Table 1: Final Presidential
Poll Figures*
|
Gore
|
Bush
|
Final Vote
|
48.4 Per Cent
|
47.9 Per Cent
|
ABC News
|
45
|
48
|
Battleground
|
45
|
50
|
CBS News Poll
|
45
|
44
|
Gallup Poll
|
46
|
48
|
Harris (Internet)
|
47
|
47
|
Harris Poll (phone)
|
47
|
47
|
ICR International Communications
|
44
|
46
|
Knowledge Networks (Internet)
|
44
|
46
|
MSNBC
|
48
|
46
|
NBC News
|
44
|
47
|
Pew Research Center
|
47
|
49
|
TIPP
|
46
|
48
|
Washington Post
|
45
|
48
|
Zogby International
|
48
|
46
|
14 Poll Average
|
46
|
47
|
* For those polls ending one or
two days prior to election day.
Source: ESOMAR Research
World, number 11, December 2000, p. 5.
The
Geographical Battle
To be elected, a presidential candidate needs to
win 270 votes in the Electoral College. When compared with other
national presidential elections, this gives US contests an unusual
geographical element.(3)
The national opinion polls, while indicating the
overall evenness of support for the two major candidates,
effectively disguised the different campaign needs of each. The
Republicans seemed to face the easier task. Although Bob Dole, the
1996 Republican candidate, only received 40.7 per cent of the
national vote compared with Bill Clinton's 49.2 per cent, the
Republican actually won 159 Electoral College votes from 19 states.
Most of these came from the South, including such states as
Virginia (13 Electoral College votes) and Mississippi (7), and the
West, including Oklahoma (8) and the Dakotas (both 3). In 2000,
polls showed that it seemed highly likely that all 19 would vote
Republican once more, thus giving Bush a very strong base from
which to build the total of at least 270 Electoral College votes
that was needed for victory. If one added Florida (25), the
fourth-largest state governed by Bush's brother, Jeb, which many
expected would be won by Bush, then the Republicans were likely to
win a minimum of 184 votes, leaving them just 86 votes to pick up
from among the thirty other states.(4)
By contrast, the Democrats were likely to have
to work much harder just to hold many states that might have been
considered safe. Although the two largest states, California (54)
and New York (33) were probably safe for Gore, as also were states
in the North-East such as Massachusetts (12) and Connecticut (8), a
number of others appeared to be vulnerable. Some of the 31 states
that Bill Clinton had won in 1996 were no longer likely for the
Democrats, including Louisiana (9), Arizona (8) and Nevada (4).
Others, including Florida, Kentucky (8) and Arkansas (6), would be
very hard for them to win. Overall, then, the Democrats had fewer
'safe' states than did their rivals. Even of the ten states that
Mike Dukakis managed to win, when being trounced in 1988, polls
showed that Governor Bush was making strong inroads into a
significant number, including Iowa (7), Minnesota (18) and
Wisconsin (11). As a rough measure of the different tasks that lay
ahead in 2000, it seemed clear that Bush could win without the
largest state of California, but a loss of that state by the
Democrats would be fatal for the Vice-President's chances. At the
same time, a Democratic success in that state could not guarantee a
Democrat victory.
An out-of-left-field problem for Gore that made
his task harder was the possible impact of voters supporting Ralph
Nader. It was quite plausible that the Green candidate was far more
likely to strip crucial votes from Gore than Pat Buchanan was from
Bush. With the exception of California, the potential Green vote
was likely to be highest in Washington (11), Oregon (7), Minnesota
and Wisconsin, all states won by Dukakis, but now offering a
realistic target for Bush-even without the presence of Nader on the
ballot.
The task of achieving the target of 270
Electoral College votes was therefore markedly different for each
candidate. Bush could take much more for granted, being able to
ignore the large wedge of safe Republican states, and therefore
being freed up to devote much time in what became called the
Midwest 'battleground' states-in addition to Minnesota and
Wisconsin, he spent much effort in Missouri (11), Ohio (21) and
Pennsylvania (23). He also targetted, and seemed to enjoy
challenging Gore in Arkansas, the home state of the President, and
Tennessee (11), the home state of Gore. Finally, the Republicans
responded to Nader's challenge to the Democrats in Washington and
Oregon by putting a substantial effort in those Pacific states.
As the campaign progressed, Bush also began to
challenge in California. This was never seen as realistically his
to win, although polls suggested that Bush's surge in support,
combined with Gore's relative neglect of the state, helped reduce
Gore's lead from double figures to a low of about five per cent at
one point. On the other hand, and probably to the surprise of the
Governor, Florida came to appear less safe than had appeared likely
at first, possibly as a consequence of retirees' fears concerning
their Social Security, and both Bush and Cheney came to spend a lot
of time in the Sunshine State.
Gore's task seemed to be largely threefold.
Above all, he needed to cling onto as many of the large industrial
states, such as Pennsylvania, as he could. He could ill afford to
see too many slip from his party's hands, for increasingly there
seemed little chance that the Republicans would lose any of the
1996 Dole states. The Gore camp also began to sense the
vulnerability of Florida, and apart from Gore often venturing into
the state, it came to be joked that Lieberman spent so much time in
the state that he had long since fulfilled Florida voting residency
requirements. Finally, Gore increasingly needed to work to lessen
the impact of Nader in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota and Wisconsin
where there was a real danger that even a vote of a few per cent
for the Green candidate could turn the state over to the
Republicans.
The Clinton
Factor
The big intangible for the Democratic candidate
was how to deal with what many journalists called 'the Clinton
factor'. On the one hand, burdened with such dubious matters as the
Whitewater affair and the Lewinsky scandal, the President might
well prove to be a burden for Gore. On the other hand, it was felt
to be potentially useful for Gore to link himself to the healthy US
economy that had developed during the Clinton years and which had
aided the reduction of the huge 1992 deficit. In addition, the
President's campaigning skills might well be usefully tapped by his
Vice-President, especially as, perhaps paradoxically, the
President's own approval rating remained high throughout the
campaign.
Throughout the campaign, Gore chose to stake out
a separate position enabling him to proclaim that he was 'his own
man'. The risk was that the votes preserved by the effort to
distance himself from the 'Clinton sleaze' factor, might not match
the number of voters who might be stimulated to go to the poll by
an active President stumping the country. Although the motivation
was different, Gore's failure to use Clinton was a reminder of
Richard Nixon's reluctance to use President Eisenhower in 1960.
The
Presidential Debates
Many commentators expected that the three
presidential debates would help Gore open up a winning lead over
his opponent. It was widely believed that Gore's experience and
skill in public forums combined with his long-standing interest in
policy matters would be to his advantage in the setting of three
formal, televised debates. The commonly-held view was that the
Texan's weakness on policy issues would be clearly exposed, and
that his apparent inability to express himself clearly would mark a
clear difference in capability between him and Gore.
In fact, the debates seem to have helped Bush
and may have weakened Gore. To some degree this was caused by
weaknesses in Gore's performance. His testiness in the first
debate, and his oddly muted performance in the second, both earned
criticism from commentators. It was claimed, for instance, that the
Democratic campaign team's preparation of their candidate:
did not fully exploit the debates to demonstrate
his [i.e. Gore's] claim to greater experience and superior
qualifications for the presidency.(5)
By contrast, Bush's success in avoiding any
serious blunders that would have enabled Gore to 'put him away',
meant that he lost no ground in the three debates. Essentially,
Bush was helped by the generally low expectations that had been
held of his likely debate performance.
Representative John Kasich, an Ohio Republican,
believed that Gore had missed an important opportunity, saying that
Gore would one day ask 'Why did this happen?' How was it that he
let his opponent walk away from the debates effectively
unscathed?(6)
The
Issues
US Presidential elections are partly about
policy issues, partly about planting images of the candidates in
voters' minds.
Policy
According to the New York Times, the
candidates simply 'devoted their efforts to blurring their
differences and appropriating each other's issues'.(7)
Despite this, there were a number of important policy questions
that divided the candidates:
-
- Taxation: Bush spoke of devoting more than a third of
the projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion to tax cuts across
the board. Gore would reserve about 10 per cent of the surplus for
tax cuts to low and middle-income families.
-
- Health care: Gore spoke of providing health insurance
for all children. He also promised a Patients' Bill of Rights
allowing patients to sue health maintenance organisations. He
promised to add a prescription drugs benefit to Medicare for older
Americans. Bush would reduce the number of uninsured by subsidising
their ability to buy private coverage, would expand medical savings
accounts and would make the cost of long-term care tax
deductible.
-
- Social Security: Bush would use about half the Social
Security surplus to allow younger workers to set aside part of
their payroll taxes for personal savings accounts to invest in
financial markets. Gore proposed using the budget surplus to reduce
the national debt, a consequence of which would be extending the
solvency of Social Security to at least 2054.
-
- Education: Bush would provide $1500 vouchers for
students in 'failing' public schools. These could be used for
paying tuition for private schools. Gore opposed vouchers but would
expand the federal government's role in school construction and
investment in infrastructure and new teachers.
-
- Environment: Gore supported the Kyoto global warming
treaty, opposed by Bush on the grounds that it harmed US
interests.
-
- Foreign policy: Gore supported the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Bush opposed the treaty, and said he would
be prepared to withdraw the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty if it was necessary to pursue missile defence. Bush also
spoke of reducing US military involvement in international
peacekeeping, and questioned a continued US military presence in
the Balkans.
Bush described the general approach of his
policy thrust as being that of a 'compassionate conservative'.
Whereas Bush stayed constant in his approach, there seemed an
element of vacillation in his opponent. At times Gore was clearly
the inheritor of the liberal ideas of many Democratic
predecessors-as in his attack on Bush's tax plan as a giveaway to
America's richest one per cent. At the same time he
clearly found it far more difficult to deal with some of the issues
dearest to conservative voters, such as gun control and abortion
rights than did Bush. His uncertainty seemed summed up by the many
changes of clothing style to which he subjected his
audiences-'would the real Al Gore stand up', was often asked in the
press.
Personal
A great deal of effort goes into making voters
aware of Presidential candidates. This is particularly the case if,
like Texas Governor Bush, a candidate's political career has
largely been based in a particular state. In 2000 this was given
added importance for the Republicans, for the Bush team believed it
could not win if the campaign became bogged down in discussion of
policy detail. Consequently, much effort was made to focus on
Bush's personality-and particularly his acknowledged likeability:
'he made his inexperience a virtue, his vagueness a shield, his
sins a sign of sincerity'.(8)
While presenting an image of Bush as everybody's
trustworthy friend, the Republicans attempted to undermine the
commonly held image of Al Gore as the 'honest Boy Scout'. A major
target of attack was Gore's propensity to exaggerate his
involvement in various governmental activities. These ranged from
his apparent claim to have taken the initiative in creating the
Internet, to whether or not he had visited some bushfires in Texas
with a particular government official on a particular day. The Bush
campaign felt that the Vice-President was vulnerable on this count,
and eventually Gore felt this attack keenly enough to apologise
during the campaign for his occasional habit of 'exaggeration'. The
New York Times believed that the Internet claim, in
particular, 'helped cement an image as a public servant who
sometimes embellishes the truth and cannot resist telling tall
tales'.(9)
Bush used an old tactic of portraying himself as
a Washington outsider. He promised to bring 'a new attitude and
atmosphere' to the city, which he described as a place where 'there
is so much anger, so much division, so much important work left to
be done'.(10) The Republicans also attempted to use
anti-Washington feeling against Gore, so long a resident of the
city. He was portrayed as part of the Washington establishment, who
had no idea of the needs and interests of 'ordinary Americans' who
lived 'beyond the Beltway'. Bush ridiculed his opponent as
'somebody who was raised in a hotel in our country's
capital'.(11) Gore was also criticised for his policies
that would, it was claimed, make him 'the biggest-spending
President of all time'.
Bush was not free from personal criticism,
however. Many jokes were made about his occasional confusion of
language and apparent lack of familiarity with international
affairs. Despite his having entered a second term as Governor of
Texas, the Democrats spent a great deal of time in querying Bush's
lack of experience in government and the administration of policy
matters. A related attack was mounted upon the condition of some
Texas services: the poor standard of schools was criticised, as
also were the high levels of pollution across the state. A
much-repeated claim was that Houston recently had taken over the
mantle from Los Angeles as the most heavily polluted major American
city.
As is always the case, each camp ran television
advertisements very critical of their opponent, the tenor of which
was picked up by both the stand-up comic circuit and by newspaper
cartoonists. This intrusion of personal attacks into a campaign can
be harsher in US than in Australian elections and a selection of
cartoons is attached below, to illustrate how personal the attacks
on each candidate became (see Appendix 1).
Nader
Ralph Nader's main aim was to gain five per cent
of the national vote so as to qualify for federal funding in 2004,
but he was soon under attack for the possible harm he was doing the
Democratic campaign. He denied he was taking Democrat voters,
stating that most of his support came from
independents.(12) He professed to see no difference
between Gore and Bush, stating that they would be equally
disastrous in the White House. Nader refused to see any positives
in the Vice-President that might suggest that it would be better
from a green perspective to have Gore as President.
Gradually, voices in the public interest
community came to query the tactical sense of Nader being on the
ballot-paper. Some, in fact, called for him to withdraw. A number
of past allies began to work to stop him from crippling Gore,
including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the
United Steelworkers and Planned Parenthood.(13) A
bizarre suggestion, briefly discussed on the Internet, was for
Nader voters in closely-fought states to 'swap' their votes with
Democrats living in states safe for Bush, but electoral authorities
soon pointed to the illegality of such moves, and the Internet
discussion ended.
The
Count
Unusually, the conduct of the count of popular
votes played a crucial part in this Presidential election.
The
Media and the Count
During an Australian election night, election
commentators work with actual returns as they discuss the election
trends and outcome. With few exceptions there is little attempt to
'call' the election based on predictions made from opinion polling
or small early samples of the actual vote.
By contrast, US media Presidential election
night coverage makes great use of exit polling undertaken as voters
leave the polling place. This exit polling is used as the base upon
which the networks seek to establish who has won the election, a
prediction that they are keen to make ahead of their rivals. An
important (and not usually significant) consequence is that there
is an unpreparedness to wait for large samples of actual counted
votes before such predictions are made. The significance of this is
enhanced by the existence of the Electoral College, for an election
night call of 'New York goes to Gore' is relevant in a way that
would not be the case if there was only a tallying of a nationwide
popular vote. Since 1988 the networks have been part of a
consortium paying for the services of Voter News Service (VNS). VNS
has used exit polling, typically done well before the close of
polling, combined with a few early official vote returns, to
predict outcomes. In 2000 this methodology came to play a
significant part in the election itself.
Between 7.50 and 8 p.m. on election night, all
major networks 'gave' the Florida vote to Gore, a prediction that
made Gore's overall victory seem highly likely. In a television
appearance, a puzzled Bush expressed his doubt that such a result
could be accurate at that stage in the count, but at first this was
ignored by commentators. Bush's doubts were soon seen to be
justified, as it came to be appreciated that the VNS prediction was
based on faulty data, not the least of which was the fact that some
Floridans were yet to vote. By 10 p.m. Florida was 'back in
the game', according to revised network announcements. But the
drama was not over, for just after 2 a.m. on the next morning the
networks were now sure that Bush had won Florida and, hence, the
Presidency-and made an announcement accordingly. Despite this, the
prize was taken from Bush's hands once again (with Gore just
avoiding a public concession) within two hours, as a huge Bush lead
in Florida very quickly was whittled away as returns continued to
come in.(14)
Of course, there is nothing new in this style of
television coverage of Presidential elections.(15) The
important difference in 2000, however, was the closeness of the
contest and the possible consequences of making a call that was too
rushed. Most significantly, Republicans were reportedly resentful
of the first television call of Florida, which they blamed for
discouraging Republican voters in states to the west of Florida
from going to a polling place at all. It was said that this even
affected voters in Florida's Republican-voting Panhandle, which is
on Central Standard Time and therefore which did not close its
polls until an hour later than the rest of the state, which is on
Eastern Standard Time. For their part, Democrats also were bothered
with the early Florida call. They feared that Democratic voters in
the Central Time Zone would think their candidate had won the
election and that it was unnecessary for them to vote. The impact
of such a media call is impossible to measure, but these events
have prompted Representative Billy Tauzin, the Republican chair of
the House telecommunications subcommittee, to foreshadow an
investigation of the night's dramatic events:
It [the early media call] may have sent a signal
out to Americans that this election was being decided in a way that
was not accurate. When they're being told by the networks that it's
already over, that's akin to disenfranchising
them.(16)
An independent report prepared by three veteran
journalists, released on 2 February 2001, was also severe. Apart
from the possible effect upon voters, the impression eventually
given during the night that Bush was the winner impacted upon
public perception during the post-election challenge, when Gore was
labelled a 'sore loser':
Television interfered with the electoral process
and the election result. In our opinion, that constitutes an abuse
of power, if unintentionally so, by CNN and by all the mainstream
television news operations.(17)
Events in Florida
The remarkable events that engrossed the
nation-and a great many people beyond its shores-will presumably
form the basis for a great deal of analysis over many aspects of
the US political system. A chronology of these events is included
in Appendix 2 of this paper. Among the most significant aspects are
the following.
Voting System-Methods of Voting
The Florida events threw into stark relief many
long-standing, but largely ignored, problems with the US voting
system.
The difficulty of achieving any type of
consistent (and fair) approach in a system that is as decentralised
as is the American, stands out as a major contributing factor to
the Florida saga. In that state alone there are 67 counties, each
running its own electoral agency, each presumably attempting to
ensure reasonable standards of performance, but each operating
within its own particular budgetary restraints. According to the
Federal Election Commission, in the 1996 Presidential election
there were five main methods of voting used across the nation
(Table 2), with some counties using more than one. All five methods
were in use in Florida in 2000.
Table 2: Voting Methods used in 1996 US
Presidential Election
Method
|
Per Cent
|
Paper
|
1.7
|
Lever
|
20.7
|
Punch-card
|
37.3
|
Optical scan
|
26.4
|
Direct Recording Electronic
|
7.7
|
More than one method used
|
6.2
|
Source: Federal Electoral Commission,
http://www.fec/gov/elections.html(18)
Although approximately one-third of voters used
the punch-card method, it was soon obvious that its being favoured
by so many authorities was no guarantee of its efficiency. The
method had been in use at least since the early 1960s, and by
retaining aging (but cheap) equipment, electoral authorities could
no longer guarantee that all votes were adequately registered. The
consequence was that in 2000 some arcane electoral official terms,
such as 'chad' or 'undervote' entered the US political lexicon.
However, although the terms were unfamiliar, their significance
soon became clear to the watching public. A voter hindered by an
inability to operate a punch-card machine to adequately punch out a
hole-and therefore cast a ballot that would not be read by the
machine-might yet leave enough evidence of his/her voting intent. A
chad is the piece of paper that is punched out in the act of
voting. If the chad is still attached, it is a 'hanging chad', or
if a telltale bulge indicates an attempt to puncture the card, the
term is 'dimpled', 'pregnant' or 'bulging' chad. The term
'undervote' is used to describe votes that for some reason have not
been counted by the machine reading the ballots-in Florida alone
there were over 61 000 undervoted ballots in
2000.(19)
Voting Arrangements-Problems of
Decentralisation
Elections in the US have always been
administered by state and local authorities. This has meant that,
over time, the arrangements for the conduct of national elections
have differed from state to state-even from county to county within
a state. Inevitably, the standards put in place have varied a great
deal. Wisconsin, for instance, developed a name for having higher
election standards than most other states. In the 1970s a public
debate occurred over a lack of uniform standards in electoral
administration. This eventually led to the establishment of the
Voting Systems Standards Program, designed to give assistance to
those electoral authorities who voluntarily sought to achieve
certain national standards in electoral administration. When
discussing this program in 1998, the Federal Electoral Commission
acknowledged that there were difficulties in achieving uniformity
of standards across the nation, but was generally up-beat about
what had been achieved: 'the current standards remain for the most
part adequate and useful for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy
and reliability of voting systems'.(20) It is probable
that many Americans would now regard this view as unrealistically
optimistic, particularly as it is clear that voting problems were
not restricted to Florida.
To an Australian observer these events indicate
the value in having national elections organised by a central
authority, with no local input of any kind. Australia has uniform
voting hours, uniform voting rules, uniform ballot papers; the US
has none of these, all being controlled by state or local
authorities:
The American electoral process is an enormously
complex patchwork of archaic counting systems run by harried
officials, with minimal oversight and funding.(21)
According to Newsweek, the Florida
controversy, which also caused Americans to note other anomalies in
other states as well:
... threw a harsh spotlight on the process of
voting, arguably the most precious American act-yet one governed by
an arcane patchwork of local officialdom and antiquated machinery,
some of it dating back to the 19th century. The system would be
amusing were it not creaking so loudly-and dangerously-under the
collective weight of the closest presidential election in modern
history. Voters, already terminally cynical about candidates and
campaigns, might come to feel the same way about the sanctity of
the vote count.(22)
Voting Arrangements-Discriminatory Effects
One unexpected discovery in Florida and
elsewhere, is the degree of discrimination that seems to exist as a
consequence of the operation of the voting system:
-
- the use of punch-cards can discriminate against the elderly who
can have difficulty ensuring that their card is satisfactorily
punched
-
- people can be denied entry to polling places even when they
present themselves before closing time, on the grounds that
officials do not believe that they can be processed before the
close of polling
-
- rules specific to particular states can affect electoral
outcomes. For example, many Florida voters were turned away because
of a state law that barred from voting people who had been found
guilty of a crime or misdemeanour, even once their sentence had
been served. Another example of great relevance to this election
was that Florida electoral arrangements made no provision for hand
re-counts of punchcard ballot papers, though, ironically, they are
allowed in Texas
-
- because a disproportionate number of votes were disallowed in
counties where black voters predominated, black spokespeople
believe that there is a prima facie case for suggesting that
minority voters were discriminated against by voting officials. For
example, Florida shifted thousands of registered voters into
'inactive' status when records indicated that they may have moved
residence. When many arrived to vote they were denied the
opportunity. Reportedly, the voting locations most likely to lack
the telephone and computer connections required to clear up the
confusion were precincts with a large number of voters from
minority communities
-
- the fact that the Constitution specifies the particular day for
voting by the Electoral College seemed to discriminate against some
Florida voters, as judges and voting officials were clearly
operating with the deadline very much in their minds. It is clear
that some voters were discriminated against when their votes were
not included in the final Florida tally despite their votes being
known, and
-
- as noted above, the broadcasting of results across the nation
before all voting has been completed can discriminate against
parties-the Republicans have a valid claim in 2000, but it has hurt
both parties at different times in the past. Interestingly, the
recent Canadian election illustrated how the imposition of a
national media ban until voting has ceased, can work very
effectively, though this is no doubt easier in a
nationally-administered system.
The Media
The media was very important in the events in
Florida. This was partly due to the fact that the ongoing Florida
saga was the type of story that the media relishes, with plenty of
drama, anger, frustration, heroes and villains, tension. Rarely do
political stories of such importance last so long, providing the
media with new angles virtually every day-as the timeline in
Appendix 2 makes clear. Part of this coverage was of the normal
type, but the use of the Internet as part of the news-dissemination
process meant that each day a massive amount of fact and opinion on
these events was available to an unprecedented level.
The media also played an integral part in the
way the opposing sides played their hands in Florida. Repeatedly
the media reported one or the other camp as considering how best to
present their case to the public. In addition, both sides saw
propaganda value in having the media report that their candidate
was 'ahead' in the Florida count. The media was thus an integral
part of the Florida legal struggle.
A highly controversial development involving the
media was the involvement of several news organisations in an
informal re-count of disputed Florida votes. This was possible
because of the state's liberal public records law that guarantees
public access to various types of records, including ballot papers.
These media organisations were joined by a private public interest
body, Judicial Watch. Republicans, such as Representative Mark
Foley (R-Florida), were unhappy with this media activity: 'Anything
that undermines Bush's ability to govern is of my
concern'.(23) Because of an absence of agreed standards
for such an exercise, any figures which came from it were felt to
be highly dubious.
The Use of the Courts
The legal battle in Florida brought the court
system very much under the spotlight, for the legal manoeuvring
involved cases brought before many courts, ranging all the way from
Florida circuit courts to the US Supreme Court. The complexity of
the legal struggle was such that at times it was very difficult to
keep track of all the activity that was occurring. Essentially,
though, there was a central thread to each side's legal
strategy.
For the Republicans, ahead at all times in the
Florida count, the aim was to ensure that a manual re-count was not
allowed, or if it was, to bar the inclusion of the new figures into
the final Florida tally. The defence of this stance was the
argument that if counting by hand were to be allowed to continue,
then this could be seen as unequal treatment of citizens, and was
therefore in breach of the XIV Amendment to the
Constitution.(24)
There were at least two reasons why it was in
the best interests of the Democratic challenger that the vote
counting be allowed to continue. Firstly, it was obviously
important for the Democrats' Florida vote to pass that of Bush so
as to be able to argue that Gore had indeed won the Florida vote.
Secondly, the struggle was not only being fought in the courts,
however. It was felt that if there was some Republican effort to
force a result-such as the Florida legislature choosing to ignore
the vote and appoint Republican delegates to the Electoral
College-then in the court of public opinion it might be very
significant if this were done against a backdrop of Gore actually
being ahead in the counting.
The Democrats focused their legal fight on
ensuring manual re-counts be held in particular counties. In
retrospect this may well have been a tactical error. It may have
been better to challenge the entire Florida vote, rather than just
a part of it, for the Supreme Court might have had greater
difficulty using the unequal treatment argument if the entire
Florida vote was being called into question, though the time
constraints may have been even more acute.
Throughout the Florida legal battle there were
many reminders of the close relationship between the political and
legal systems. The media continually reminded the public of the
links between particular judges and the administrations that
appointed them. This also coloured speculation as to how particular
judges might vote on particular questions-would judges appointed by
Republicans be more likely to be sympathetic to arguments put by
Republican attorneys? There were also instances of judges being
critical of fellow-judges' decisions that were pointed to as
examples of how naïve it might be to suppose that politics did
not impact upon judicial decision-making.
The
Vote
The official popular vote tally giving Gore a
margin of 539 895 votes, or 48.4 to 47.9 per cent was the narrowest
since the 50 per cent to 48 per cent victory in 1976 of Jimmy
Carter over Gerald Ford, though in saying that these are official
figures, one must acknowledge that the final vote in Florida will
never be known for sure (for official figures, see Appendix 3). The
estimated turnout was 50.7 per cent, barely above the 49 per
cent of 1996 that had been the lowest return since 1924, and well
below the 55.2 per cent of 1992.(25)
In broad terms, Gore's Electoral College vote
was found in three wedges: the North-east (excepting New
Hampshire), five Mid-West states (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Illinois and Michigan) and the three Pacific states. This meant
that Bush took the states from Idaho to Virginia, with only New
Mexico withstanding the Republican sweep.
The national figures reveal a remarkable shift
in US voting behaviour that has occurred in the past three
decades.
For approximately 100 years after the Civil War,
the South was the preserve of the Democratic Party. It was often
said that the real competition in many congressional elections in
this region was in Democratic primaries, rather than in the contest
between Democratic and Republican candidates. This had begun to
change by 1964 when the Republicans won five states in the South.
During the 1980s the shift became clearer and in 2000 Bush won not
only all eleven states from the old Confederacy, but also West
Virginia, Missouri, Oklahoma and Kentucky, states located on the
North-South border.
By contrast, the Democratic candidates now rely
for a large proportion of their support in the Northeast, a former
Republican stronghold-in 1976 Gerald Ford won five of the states
between New Jersey and Maine. By contrast, in 2000 Al Gore won 43
per cent of his 266 Electoral College votes from this region.
Within the state figures there was a marked
difference between urban and rural returns. Cities with populations
in excess of 500 000 were won by Gore by a three to one ratio. In
smaller urban areas, Gore took three of five cities with
populations between 50 000 and 500 000. About half of the votes
came from rural areas, and Bush won about 60 per cent of this part
of the country.(26)
Electoral
College Figures
On December 18 the Electoral College cast its
votes. Bush received 271 of 537 valid votes, one more than
required, in the closest Electoral College margin since the
disputed election of 1876. Gore should have received 267 votes, but
one Democratic elector from the District of Columbia cast an
unmarked ballot in protest at the District of Columbia's lack of
voting power in Congress. This gave Bush a final winning margin of
five Electoral College votes, 271-266.(27)
Gore is the fourth candidate after Andrew
Jackson (1824), Samuel Tilden (1876) and Grover Cleveland (1888) to
win the popular vote yet lose in the Electoral College. Ironically,
the 2000 election was so close that some commentators actually had
predicted that the Electoral College vote would not match the
popular vote, but that Gore would be the
beneficiary.(28)
Accounting for the Result
A detailed analysis of this election will take
some time, but even an early analysis such as this suggests the
importance of a number of factors.
The
Campaigns
In the frantic rush of campaigning after the
traditional start on Labor Day (first Monday in September), the
consistent opinion poll message was that the popular vote margin
was likely to be narrow. In a system where about half of the
registered voters were unlikely to turnout, this placed a great
importance in the individual campaigns of the two candidates, with
a strong emphasis on encouraging voter turnout on Election Day. It
was therefore believed that both needed to be seen in marginal
states if they were to have any chance of winning them. In such an
electoral contest, it is inevitable that parties and commentators
wonder about possible campaigning errors that may have hurt one
candidate or the other. Some of the more significant questions
included the following.
Bush
Campaign
-
- Bush's choice of Washington veteran, Dick Cheney, was
criticised. Presidential campaign running mates are often chosen to
enhance a party's chances of winning the state of the
Vice-Presidential candidate, but in this case not only was Cheney's
state of Wyoming rock-solid Republican, but its Electoral College
tally of three votes was very likely to be irrelevant to the
result. It was pointed out that Bush may have taken the rich
pickings of Pennsylvania (23), which remained doubtful through the
campaign, if the state's popular Governor, Tom Ridge, had been on
the ticket. Alternatively, although Senator John McCain's Arizona
(8) would not have been a significant prize, the placing on the
ticket of the Vietnam War hero-who had defeated Bush in two
primaries earlier in the year-might well have given it far more
electoral impact than brought by Cheney
-
- despite the Bush camp's making an issue of the Gore character
flaws, little effort was made to link the Vice-President firmly to
President Clinton, particularly in relation to controversies over
fundraising that both had been involved in. Some critics felt that
Bush had been too gentle with Gore
-
- some serious damage was said to have been done to Bush by the
McCain campaign in the New Hampshire primary, when Bush's tax plan
was said to have been designed to benefit the rich who had no need
of such a cut. Bush made no effort to trim his policy sails on this
issue, and it is arguable that this might have hurt him with poorer
voters
-
- even when Gore's opinion poll standing fell in California,
there seemed little likelihood that the Democrats would fail to
carry the state. Despite this, Bush spent valuable time and
resources stumping California in the last days of the campaign when
he could have been putting in more time in the so-called
battleground states. The time spent flying to and from the Pacific
Coast came with a loss of campaigning time that he could have done
without, and
-
- Bush also puzzled observers with his relatively sedate
campaigning schedule, which contrasted very much with the frenetic
pace of his rival. The Texan travelled home for each weekend,
effectively falling from public view, and he even rested at home on
the second-last Sunday of the campaign. It must be wondered if one
day's rest could really have made a difference, but this pause so
close to polling day still earned him criticism: 'Would an extra
stop in, say, Pennsylvania, West Virginia or Wisconsin have made a
difference-or the difference?'(29)
Gore
Campaign
-
- although Gore's desire to establish himself as a political
identity separate from the incumbent President was understandable,
the manner in which this was handled denied him the use of a
politician who was recognised as an effective campaigner. Critics
wondered if Clinton should have been used far more, particularly in
encouraging African Americans-who vote overwhelmingly Democratic-to
get to the polling place
-
- on the other hand, Clinton may have hurt Gore whatever approach
the latter took in the campaign. Opinion polls suggested that for
nearly half of the electorate the Clinton scandals were an
important factor when considering their vote-and that three out of
four of these actually voted for Bush. This was in spite of the
fact that about two-thirds of those polled thought the economy was
heading in the right direction, normally an important factor in
such elections(30)
-
- linked to this was an apparent Democratic reluctance to make
more of the healthy US economy. The economic boom that coincided
with the Clinton Presidency, contrasted with the four average
economic years of the Bush Presidency. Although late in the piece
Gore occasionally referred to this, some Democrats believed he
should have made more effort to link himself with the economy
throughout the entire campaign
-
- the Bush camp made much of claimed problems of Gore's
personality, but the Democrats were much gentler with the Texan.
Should Gore have hit the Governor harder on his own flaws, not the
least of which was his inability to enunciate a clear policy
direction?
-
- further to this point, some observers claimed that Gore should
have hit harder at the record of the Bush administration in Texas.
The Democratic party certainly ran advertisements that were
critical of the Texas record, but Gore himself perhaps should have
been more involved in this
-
- this opens up the issue of just how well-organised the Gore
campaign actually was. In an surprising confession at a forum on
the election held in mid-February 2001, Carter Eskew, one of Gore's
key strategists, regretted that he had 'no detailed game plan' for
the campaign(31)
-
- Gore's performance in the televised debates was seen as
ill-advised. His obvious lack of patience with Bush in the first,
his over-cautious approach in the second, and even the moment in
the third when in walking straight at Bush he was said to have
invaded the 'personal space' of the Texan, all attracted much
public criticism, and
-
- the issue of Gore's tendency to exaggerate had been in the
public arena for some time, and there was a suggestion that this
hurt him with voters. During the campaign it transpired that as
early as his 1988 Presidential campaign his staff was warning of a
need to control this tendency. There was certainly much made of
this by his opponent, the stand-up comic circuit, and by the media.
An example of the latter was the lengthy editorial that appeared in
Tennessee's Chattanooga Free Press which re-counted a
substantial number of claimed exaggerations, under the title,
'Trivial but ... '.(32)
The Bush
Fighting Fund
How significant was the Bush team's enormous
amount of money? By the time the candidates were chosen he had
raised an astonishing $US91 million, nearly double the Gore
total.(33) It is hard to judge the impact of this, but
the media continually ran stories that hinted at its impact. Prior
to the Republican Convention it certainly made it very difficult
for other Republicans to gain any worthwhile tally of donations. In
the election proper, in some states there was sufficient Republican
money available to buy up a large amount of prime time television
advertising space. Veteran election-observer, David Broder of the
Washington Post, was sure that this was very significant,
believing that Bush had spread cash resources more widely than any
other non-incumbent candidate in his experience.
(34)
Gore and
Tennessee
If Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee
he would have won the Presidency. In 11 elections since 1960,
only two of 22 major party candidates (McGovern-D-1972,
Gore-D-2000) have failed to win their home states-even the badly
beaten Barry Goldwater (R-1964) and Walter Mondale (D-1984) managed
to achieve that. Two factors appear to have been important in
accounting for Gore's failure.
Like other Southern states, Tennessee has swung
to the more conservative Republican Party in recent times-in 1994
the Democrats lost the Governorship and the state's two Senate
seats. Gore's liberal stance on issues like abortion rights,
limited gun control and gay rights probably hurt him in a
conservative electorate-in his effort to outflank Nader, he may
have upset the folks at home.
The second factor may well have been Gore's
having come to be seen as a member of the Washington establishment.
There seemed to be sentiment abroad that he had ceased to be a
'true' Tennessean and came home only when he needed people's votes.
Whatever the factors in accounting for his failure, Gore barely won
his home county, failed to carry his former Congressional district
and finished nearly three per cent behind Bush across the
state.(35)
The Impact
of the Nader Campaign
The most basic reading of the 2000 Presidential
election result would suggest that the key factor in Gore's failure
to win enough Electoral College votes was the impact of the Nader
campaign. To make that assertion, two assumptions need to be made.
The first is that green voters who supported Nader would have still
turned out to vote if Nader had not been on the ballot paper. The
second assumption, that follows the first, is that green voters
would have been overwhelmingly likely to have supported Gore-a
politician who had quite respectable 'green'
credentials(36)-ahead of Bush.
The states that are central to this claim are
New Hampshire and Florida, both won by George W. Bush. In the
former, Bush's final margin was just over 7211 votes (or about 1.3
per cent). With Nader's vote tally being over 22 000 votes, or 3.9
per cent of the whole, it is quite plausible to claim that New
Hampshire would have gone for Gore had Nader been absent, even
taking New Hampshire's general tendency to vote Republican. In the
case of Florida, the case seems clearer. With the final margin
between Bush and Gore being less than one thousand votes, Nader's
voters would have only had to split 51-49 to Gore for the Democrats
to have won the state, a very likely outcome taken the greater
sympathy between greens and Democrats than between greens and
Republicans.
The
Intervention by the Supreme Court
For many observers, in the end it was the
intrusion by the US Supreme Court into the process 'when it should
not have done so' that finally decided the election result. This is
the view of John Hart of the Australian National University. Hart
has accused the Court of stopping a 'legitimate' re-count, and in
doing so has left 'a permanent doubt about the real outcome of the
election and the real winner'. From such a perspective:
the US Supreme Court, rather than American
voters, determined the outcome of the presidential election, and it
did so in the full knowledge that recounts were incomplete and that
the result in Florida may well have been different had those
recounts been concluded.(37)
In Bush v Gore (2000) by a 5-4 vote,
the Court found 'a violation of the Equal Protection Clause [of the
Constitution]' because the re-count operations lacked necessary
'procedural safeguards' to ensure that counties would treat unread
ballots equally.(38) This judgment earned some
criticism, for the current Court has had a history of making it
nearly impossible to win claims of unequal treatment by government.
Generally, claimants have had their best chances of success if they
could prove bias and/or discrimination by government officials.
This has proved to be a very difficult matter to prove and most
cases have failed. There was certainly no effort made by Bush to
claim bias or discrimination by Florida officials.
Other
Races
In addition to the Presidential election, there
were 34 Senatorial contests, 11 gubernatorial elections and all 435
House of Representatives seats were up for election. The more
notable included the following.
Senate
Senate control was seen as within the reach of
the Democrats. The Republicans held an eight seat margin (54-46),
but had 19 of their seats being contested by contrast with the
Democrats' 15 seats. The outcome was a Senate tied, 50-50, between
the major parties.
Republicans still maintain nominal control of
the Senate despite the 50-50 tie, because Vice-President Cheney has
a casting vote in the event of a tied vote. But negotiations
between the parties have been necessary to sort out such matters as
the allocation of committee seats and staff funding.
Connecticut
Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman contested both
his Senate seat and the position of Vice-President. This was the
first such double candidacy since 1960, when Lyndon Johnson
contested his Texas Senate seat while running on the Democratic
Presidential ticket with John Kennedy. Lieberman earned criticism
from within his party, for if the Democrats won the Presidency his
Senate replacement would have been chosen by the Republican
Governor, handing the seat to the Republicans. Despite this,
Lieberman retained the seat comfortably with 63 per cent, a drop of
4 per cent on his 1994 vote.
Delaware
Former member of the House of Representatives
and Governor, Tom Carper (D), defeated William Roth (R), 56 per
cent to 44 per cent. Roth, elected in 1970, was the longest-serving
Senator for this small eastern state. This is the first time
Delaware has had two Democratic Senators since the end of World War
II.
Massachusetts
Edward Kennedy, the youngest brother of
President Kennedy, was first elected to the Senate in a special
election in 1962. Opposed by a Republican candidate who had never
before run for any office, the Democrat won his eighth consecutive
Senate election gaining a massive 73 per cent of the vote, with the
Republican tally at just 13 per cent.
Missouri
The Democrats nominated Missouri's Governor, Mel
Carnahan, to oppose single-term Senator, John Ashcroft. It was
hoped that the Governor's popularity would carry him to victory,
but Carnahan was unable to draw ahead of the sitting Senator. On 16
October, the plane carrying the campaigning Carnahan crashed,
killing the Governor and his son. His replacement announced that it
was too late to remove Carnahan's name from the ballot paper, and
that if the dead man topped the Missouri Senate poll, he would
appoint Jean, Carnahan's wife. Ashcroft was left in an awkward
position. He refrained from campaigning for eight days, and clearly
felt constrained from attacking Jean Carnahan. Eventually he took
48 per cent of the vote, two per cent behind the dead Governor.
Ashcroft was later nominated as federal Attorney-General by
President-elect Bush.
New
York
The most prominent Senate election for some
years was held in New York, to replace long-time Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan (D). First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton carried
the Democratic flag, being first opposed by New York City mayor,
Rudy Giuliani. After the mayor's retirement due to ill-health,
State Representative, Rick Lazio, became the Republican candidate.
Despite carrying the burdens of her husband, her 'carpetbagger'
status and her tendency to polarise observers, Clinton's
performance belied the opinion polls that seemed to suggest a close
result, by returning a 55 per cent vote, 12 per cent ahead of
Lazio.
West
Virginia
This result is a reminder to Australians that a
number of US politicians continue to win elections at an age at
which we would expect them to have retired. Democrat Robert Byrd
(b. 1917), first elected in 1958, won his eighth election by a
massive 58 point margin.
Washington
Polling indicated that Washington state was
always going to be close, but the importance of the contest could
not have been anticipated. Three-time Republican winner, Slade
Gorton, was opposed by high-tech entrepreneur, Maria Cantwell (D),
briefly a member of the House of Representatives, 1992-94. Cantwell
won on the first count by 1953 votes, and after a re-count had
increased her lead to just 2229 votes. Washington thus joined
California and Maine in having two female Senators.(39)
Cantwell's delayed victory ensured that the Democratic Party would
gain half of the Senate membership.
House of
Representatives
If the two independent Representatives held
their seats in Vermont and Virginia, the Democrats needed just a
net gain of six seats to gain control of the House but fell four
seats short.
One of the most interesting contests was in
Washington's 5th District. In response to increasing
calls for term limits to be introduced in the US, incumbent
Republican, George Nethercutt, had set himself a self-imposed
three-term limit. In subsequently choosing to run for a fourth-term
Nethercutt earned himself a great deal of criticism, particularly
in advertisements run on local television. Despite this, he easily
retained the seat with a 57 per cent-39 per cent margin and
virtually no loss of votes on his 1998 result.
Governor's
Races
Only eleven gubernatorial contests were held.
The most interesting was probably Missouri where the retiring
Governor, Mel Carnahan, died in a plane crash while campaigning for
the Senate (see above). In an extremely close result, the state
Auditor, Bob Holden, held the position for the Democrats by just
one percentage point.
Beyond the 2000
Presidential Election
There was a great deal of debate about the US
political system during the Florida count manoeuvring, with some
questioning the underlying lack of fairness in the whole election,
that required the involvement of the courts. In his annual report
to Congress, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that:
This Presidential election ... tested our
Constitutional system in ways it has never been tested before. The
Florida State courts, the lower federal courts and the Supreme
Court of the United States became involved in a way that one hopes
will seldom, if ever, be necessary in the future.
At the same time, Rehnquist drew attention to
the fact that the American system was not in any danger and was, in
fact, 'witnessing an orderly transition of power from one
Presidential administration to another'.(40)
Despite this, however, the consequences of the
2000 Presidential election are likely to be far-reaching. In no
particular order the following may be the most significant.
Bush
and Congress
President Bush seems unlikely to have much
opportunity to build bridges with the new Congress, for there
appears to be a large amount of Democratic hostility to his
election. This will probably be emphasised by the fact that the
Republican majority in the House is just four seats, while each of
the two parties has half of the Senate numbers. He will probably
find some difficulty in reaching out to the Democratic
leadership.
Gore
in Four Years Time?
Will Al Gore have the chance to run again in
four years? The Vice-President has given nothing away about his
plans for the next election, but there has been some media
discussion about the matter. There appears to be a belief held by
some politicians within the Democratic Party that in losing what
seems to be an 'unloseable' election, Gore is unlikely to have the
chance again-or at least in 2004.
Black Americans
A great many black Americans do not vote for
Republican candidates, and are therefore always likely to be
dismayed when a Republican is successful. In this case, where it is
clear that a disproportionate number of votes by blacks were not
counted, such dismay is likely to be felt much more strongly by
many from this community. As Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
(D-Texas), president of the Congressional Black Caucus has put
it:
There is overwhelming evidence that George W.
Bush did not win this election either by national popular vote or
the Florida vote.
Johnson said that Black members of Congress
therefore did not regard Bush as the legitimate
President.(41)
The
Standing of the Supreme Court
The decision by the US Supreme Court brought
down a great deal of criticism upon its head primarily along the
line of it having put the result ahead of legal principle.
University of Virginia constitutional law scholar, A. E. Dick,
noted that the Court's action invited the observer 'to read this as
a results-driven opinion'.(42) This extended to an
expression of concern over a possible loss of standing in the US
political system. Justice John Paul Stevens spoke of the 'loser' in
the election being 'the Nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law'.(43) Some even
likened the Bush v Gore decision of 2000 to other cases
that brought disrepute upon the Court, such as Dred Scot
(1857, constitutionality of slavery), Plessy (1896,
constitutionality of segregation) and Korematsu (1944,
constitutionality of wartime Japanese
internment).(44)
Casting a Vote
It seems likely that many changes will have been
made to US voting arrangements prior to the next Presidential
election. These will involve voting arrangements in many states,
for voting problems extended well beyond the Florida borders:
In hundreds of jurisdictions around the country,
unreliable equipment, errors by ill-informed voters, inaccurate
voter registration rolls, abuses in the absentee-voting process and
staffing problems at polling places contributed to the tangled
outcome.(45)
Above all, one key requirement would seem to be
the need for states to move to taking a more active role in
ensuring that elections within their borders conform to acceptable
standards. The recent recommendation by a Florida committee to
prohibit the use of punchcard ballots by 2002 would appear to be an
example. In early February 2001 a committee of the National
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) approved recommendations
from an election standards task force, that called for reforms to
make sure all votes are counted accurately, and that voting be
accessible and easily understood by voters.(46)
The changes, important as they may be to ensure
that all votes are treated equally, are unlikely to tackle the
fundamental issues of decentralisation of electoral organisation or
the continuing use of the Electoral College. The underlying message
of the NASS report was that despite the 36-day dispute in Florida
over the Presidential election, the federal government should not
overreact and seek to reduce the authority that state and local
governments have over election procedures. A Republican President
who had been a state governor is likely to heed this message, and,
indeed, President Bush has already asked Congress to look into four
matters only:
-
- any electoral reform should include fixing machines so everyone
can vote
-
- protecting the system against felons who vote
-
- protecting men and women in the military so their right to vote
is not infringed, and
-
- exploring whether projections by the networks before the polls
close have a detrimental effect on voting.
None of these matters involve the issue of
decentralisation of elections.(47)
One national change that has been mooted is to
change the day of voting (Tuesday), either to a weekend day, or
even to allow voters to cast their vote on either day of the
weekend. Such a change would only require a vote by Congress-it was
only in 1845 that Congress stipulated the first Tuesday in
November.(48)
The
Electoral College
In the US there has long been a vein of
opposition to the Electoral College method of electing the
President.(49) The major criticism has involved the
ever-present problem that the Electoral College might return a
President who has failed to achieve a popular majority-as happened
on this occasion. Such an event is not restricted to this voting
system, but the events since Election Day seems to have engendered
much more questioning of the system than took place in either 1876
or 1888, the last occasions when this occurred. Opinion polls
seemed to be suggesting that Americans would welcome either the
abolition or else the wholesale reform of the Electoral College. A
Newsweek poll reported that a sample of voters preferred
to rid the system of the Electoral College by a 57 per cent to
33 per cent margin.(50) Newly-elected Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton has been just one of many prominent politicians
calling for reform or abolition of the Electoral College since 7
November.
As three-quarters of the states must approve a
constitutional amendment, only 13 states are needed to block any
amendment. According to Professor Delmer Dunn of the University of
Georgia, the small states that are greatly benefited by the
Electoral College numbers, would be highly likely to block such an
amendment. In addition, John Hart of the Australian National
University believes that any attempt to abolish or alter the
Electoral College, let alone bring any centralisation of the
electoral arrangements, would be seen as a challenge to state
rights and, hence, would be very likely to fail.(51)
Media Coverage
It does seem highly likely that news
organisations will alter their election night practices. NBC, CBS
and ABC have all spoken of their culpability for the election night
debacle and the need for change. ABC, for example, has spoken of
instituting many 'changes and clarifications' in its election night
processes including:
-
- explaining to viewers that projections are 'informed,
statistically-based estimates of the probable results', and are not
'reports of actual, final results'
-
- continuing to support a uniform national election closing
time
-
- projecting a winner only after the last scheduled poll closing
time in any state
-
- taking 'all reasonable steps to insulate those involved
directly in making projections from the pressures of competition
from other news organizations', and
-
- supporting comprehensive review of, and improvement in, the
operation of the Voter News Service.(52)
Endnotes
-
- Though Barry Goldwater (R-1964)-who expressed pride in his
heritage-came from the Goldwassers of Prussia, see Norman
Berdichevsky, 'The Lieberman Miracle', Contemporary
Review, vol. 277, no. 1617, October 2000, p. 196.
- Detroit Free Press, 18 October 2000.
- For the Electoral College, see Scott Bennett, 'Electing the US
President', Department of the Parliamentary Library, Research
Note, no. 13, 1999-2000. This can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1999-2000/2000rn13.htm
- The District of Columbia (3), which gave Dole less than 10 per
cent of the vote in 1996, was never considered likely to look
kindly upon Bush.
- Washington Post, 5 November 2000.
- Representative John Kasich, quoted New York Times, 5
November 2000.
- New York Times, 7 November 2000.
- Time, 5 November 2000, 25 December 2000-1 January
2001, p. 33.
- New York Times, 5 November 2000.
- Associated Press, 30 October 2000.
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 1 November 2000.
- AFP, 24 October 2000.
- Associated Press, 2 November 2000.
- For an Australian observer's description of these events, see
Robert Lusetich, 'First with the worst', Australian, 16
November-22 November 2000, Media supplement, pp. 6-7.
- For a description of similar rushed, and error-prone, analysis,
that followed the handing down of the final Supreme Court decision,
see Time, 25 December 2000-1 January 2001, p. 51.
- Quoted Lusetich, op. cit., p. 6.
- Associated Press, 2 February 2001.
- 2000 figures are not yet available, but the Federal Electoral
Commission believed that they were very similar to the previous
election.
- Time, 18 December 2000, p. 34.
- 'Frequently Asked Questions About Voting System Standards',
Federal Electoral Commission, http://www.fec/gov/pages/faqsvss.htm
- Boston Globe, 12 November 2000.
- Newsweek, 20 November 2000.
- Chicago Tribune, 20 December 2000.
- 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws'.
- Curtis Gans, Committee for the Study of the American
Electorate, MSNBC, 8 November 2000.
- Washington Post, 7 November 2000.
- New York Times, 30 December 2000.
- For example. Reuters, 24 October 2000.
- MSNBC, 2 November 2000; Bush finally won West Virginia.
- Washington Post, 7 November 2000.
- New York Times, 12 February 2001.
- Chattanooga Free Press, 6 October 2000; Los
Angeles Times, 22 September 2000.
- Official figures from the Federal Election Commission,
http://www.fec.gov/finance/precm8.htm
- Washington Post, 5 November 2000.
- Memphis Flyer, 18 January 2001.
- See Al Gore, Earth in the Balance. Ecology and the Human
Spirit, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1992.
- John Hart, 'Hail to the thief whom the court advances',
Canberra Times, 16 December 2000.
- Chicago Sun-Times, 16 December 2000.
- There are now 13 women in the Senate, an all-time high.
- '2000 Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary', 1 January
2000,
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2000year-endreport.html
- New York Times, 7 January 2001.
- Time, 25 December 1900-1 January 2001.
- George W. Bush et al, Petitioners v. Albert Gore Jr, et
al 531 US (2000), http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf,
United States Supreme
Court, 12 December 2000, p. 7, Stevens, J,
dissenting.
- See e.g. Akhil Reed Amar, Yale Law School, Los Angeles
Times, 17 December 2000.
- New York Times, 5 February 2001.
- Reuters, 5 February 2001.
- New York Times, 5, 9 February 2001.
- Boston Globe, 8 February 2001.
- See Martin Diamond, The Electoral College and the American
Idea of Democracy, Washington, American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research, 1977.
- Newsweek, 20 November 2000.
- Delmer Dunn, letter to author, 27 January 2001; John Hart
interview with author, 13 November 2000.
- Reuters, 8 February 2001.
Appendix 1: Selection of Cartoons from 2000
Campaign
- Gore was lampooned for his apparently humourless ( and
boring) concern with the full enunciation of policies.

Source: Jimmy Margulies, The Record, New
Jersey.
- Many cartoonists used the Gore tendency to 'exaggerate'
to good effect.

Source: Wayne Stayskal, Tampa Tribune.
- Bush's tendency to confuse his words was also a common
target.

Source: Jack Ohman, Portland Oregonian.
- Some cartoonists suggested that the Texan was not
clever enough to be President.

Source: Mike Luckovich,
Atlanta-Journal-Constitution.
Appendix 2: Chronology of Events in Florida, 7
November-13 December 2000
The events in Florida after Election Day
captured the interest of observers around the world. The main
events of these remarkable few weeks are listed below. They have
been compiled from assorted news sources, and in particular the
New York Times, Time, and CNN.
7.50-8 p.m. EST Election Day, 7 November
Major TV networks project Gore to be the winner
in Florida, based on Voter News Service exit poll projections.
10 p.m. EST Election Day, 7 November
As votes from Florida's Panhandle region are
reported, networks retract their projection that Gore has won the
state.
2.20 a.m. EST 8 November
Networks project Bush to be the winner in
Florida. Hearing that he seems to have lost Florida by about 50 000
votes, Gore calls Bush to concede.
3.30 a.m. EST 8 November
After receiving reports that the vote difference
in Florida is less than 1000, Gore calls Bush to retract his
concession. Networks retract their projection that Bush has won
Florida. Gore spokesperson, former Commerce Secretary, Bill Daley,
announces, 'Our campaign continues'.
4.15 a.m. EST 8 November
By now, major networks have withdrawn their
estimate that Bush is President-elect.
8 November
Final margin of Florida vote reported at 1784,
with Bush leading.
Voting irregularities alleged. An automatic vote
re-count is triggered in Florida. Governor Jeb Bush officially
takes himself out of the process.
Both campaign teams send lawyers to Florida.
9 November
Nationwide popular vote numbers released, with
Gore leading by over 192 000 votes. Neither candidate has gained
the required 270 Electoral College votes.
Pat Buchanan states that the Palm Beach County
'butterfly' ballot was confusing, and says he believes many of his
votes in the county were meant for Gore.
Gore's team, led by former Secretary of State,
Warren Christopher, requests a hand re-count in four Florida
counties-Palm Beach, Dade, Broward and Volusia.
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris says
official results from the re-count may not be completed until the
following Tuesday.
Circuit Court judge issues preliminary
injunction barring Palm Beach County officials from certifying
final count.
Sixty-four of Florida's 67 counties have
re-counted their votes, Bush leads Gore by fewer than 400 votes in
an Associated Press unofficial tally.
The Florida machine re-count is completed.
Unofficial results give Bush a lead of 327 votes.
10 November
Gore seems to have won 267 Electoral College
votes and Bush 246 Electoral College votes. Although both Oregon
and New Mexico are still undecided, it is clear that the final
result depends on the 25 Electoral College votes of the state of
Florida.
11 November
Bush seeks a federal injunction to stop hand
re-counts of ballots in several Florida counties. Former Secretary
of State, James Baker, a Bush adviser, said this was to preserve
the integrity of the election-with no uniform standard to govern
hand counts, voters will be treated unequally. This would, he
claimed, violate their equal protection rights that are found in
the XIV Amendment.
12 November
Palm Beach County officials vote to conduct a
full hand re-count of all votes.
Florida's Volusia County begins hand counting
more than 184 000 ballots.
Over the following days, many lawsuits are
brought in federal and state courts, seeking to block or allow
various counts and certifications, seeking access to particular
ballot papers, or raising questions about the legal standing of
absentee ballot papers.
13 November
Harris says deadline of 5 p.m. EST 14 November
for finishing all manual re-counts will be strictly enforced.
Christopher says Harris' stance is politically motivated and
foreshadows a legal challenge. Harris' decision will not affect the
counting of overseas absentee ballots that must be received by 17
November.
A federal judge turns down a Republican request
to stop all manual re-counts in Florida.
Broward County decides against a full manual
re-count.
14 November
Officials in Palm Beach County vote to delay
their manual re-counts until they are able to clarify whether they
have the legal authority to proceed. They later vote to resume the
re-count on 15 November.
The canvassing board in Miami-Dade County
unanimously votes to start an immediate hand re-count of ballots in
three precincts as requested by Gore's lawyers.
Circuit Judge Lewis upholds 5 p.m. Tuesday
deadline for Florida vote certification. The judge says
supplemental returns can be filed after the deadline, but can be
ignored after circumstances are considered. An appeal by the Gore
campaign to the Florida Supreme Court is expected.
Harris delays certification of Florida votes
until 2 p.m. EST 15 November in order that counties can explain why
they should conduct hand re-counts.
15 November
Harris says she will not accept further hand
re-counts. In a petition to the Florida Supreme Court, she asks the
justices to order Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties to end
manual re-counts. Election officials in Palm Beach County ask the
Florida Supreme Court to decide if they can re-count ballots by
hand.
The Bush camp will join in a suit by the Florida
Secretary of State that seeks an order to block further manual
re-counts.
Broward County votes to begin manual re-count of
election votes.
Florida Supreme Court denies the Harris request
to block hand re-counts of ballots.
Gore suggests a hand re-count in all of
Florida's 67 counties if Republicans will not accept the re-counts
in selected counties. Gore said he says he will forgo further legal
challenges if the Republicans accept the selected counties'
re-count. Gore also proposes a face to face meeting with Bush.
Harris says she would not allow three counties
to add the results of a manual re-count of ballots to the state's
total US presidential tally.
Bush rejects Al Gore's proposal for a statewide
manual count of Florida's presidential vote, saying it would be
neither fair nor accurate. Bush also rejects Gore's idea for a
one-on-one meeting prior to the election being decided.
16 November
Lawyers for Bush submit arguments to federal
appeals court in Atlanta to end the hand re-counts.
Florida Supreme Court gives the green light for
manual ballot re-counts. Within minutes, officials in Palm Beach
County announce they will begin their re-count.
17 November
Leon County Circuit judge upholds Harris'
decision to reject late vote tallies resulting from manual
re-counts.
Florida Supreme Court bars Harris from
certifying the state's presidential winner until it can rule on a
Democratic motion to allow the inclusion of hand re-counts.
Deadline for acceptance of overseas absent
ballot papers.
Dade County reverses an earlier decision, voting
to conduct a full hand re-count.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
denies a Republican request-based on constitutional grounds-to stop
hand re-counts.
18 November
Bush gains 1380 votes to Gore's 750 votes from
the overseas absentee Florida ballots enabling Bush to triple his
lead in the state. Bush's official lead stands at 930 votes.
20 November
The Florida Supreme Court hears re-count
arguments from both Gore and Bush on whether Harris should consider
hand-re-counted ballots before she certifies the Florida
result.
Florida Circuit judge says he lacks
constitutional authority to order a new election in Palm Beach
County.
21 November
The Florida Supreme Court rules that Florida's
final presidential election vote must include the results of hand
re-counts and gives counties five days to complete them.
22 November
Dade County unexpectedly calls off its hand
re-count, saying it has insufficient time to complete it by 26
November . Democrats accuse Republicans of intimidating the Dade
board.
Bush asks US Supreme Court to block the Florida
Supreme Court decision allowing hand counts to continue.
23 November
The Florida Supreme Court refuses to order Dade
County to resume hand re-count.
24 November
The US Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments in
an appeal from Bush that seeks to bar hand-counted ballots in the
disputed election.
25 November
Bush drops lawsuit to force Florida counties to
reconsider overseas military ballots that were rejected for
technical reasons.
Broward County completes its hand re-count.
26 November
Upon the expiry of the Florida Supreme Court
deadline, Harris certifies Bush as the winner in Florida by 537
votes out of a total of 5 825 043, but ongoing legal action by both
parties keeps the election outcome uncertain. Harris does not
include results from Palm Beach County, which completed its hand
re-count about two hours after the deadline.
27 November
Gore challenges Florida's certified results in
the Florida Circuit Court, arguing that the figures accepted by
Harris for Palm Beach, Dade and Nassau counties were inaccurate.
Gore claims the certified result should have included thousands of
votes that were never tallied.
The federal General Services Administration
announces it will withhold the funding and office space for
planning the transition until the election is decided.
28 November
The Florida District Court judge hearing Gore's
election contest, N. Sanders Sauls, refuses Gore's request for a
speedy resolution of the matter and sets a 2 December hearing
date.
29 November
Gore decides to appeal to the Florida Supreme
Court for an immediate re-count of about 13 000 disputed
ballots in the two Democratic counties of Dade and Palm Beach.
A committee of Florida legislators meets to
consider whether to convene a special session of the state
legislature to appoint Electoral College representatives.
30 November
Gore files his appeal to the Florida Supreme
Court.
The committee of Florida legislators votes to
recommend a special session be called to appoint Florida's slate of
Electoral College members.
1 December
US Supreme Court hears oral arguments over
whether the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its authority by
ordering Harris to include the hand re-counts in the certified
result.
2 December
Florida Circuit Judge Sauls considers Gore's
request for a hand count of about 14 000 'undervotes' in Dade and
Palm Beach Counties.
4 December
The US Supreme Court sets aside the Florida
Supreme Court ruling that allowed selective manual re-counts,
sending the case back for the Florida Supreme Court to explain its
reasoning.
Sauls dismisses Gore's bid for a hand re-count
in Dade and Palm Beach Counties, and refuses Gore's request to
overturn Bush's certified statewide victory. He finds that the
Vice-President failed to show that hand re-counts would have
affected the result. Gore appeals to the Florida Supreme Court.
6 December
US Court of Appeals in Atlanta denies Bush
appeal to throw out manual re-counts in Florida.
In Tallahassee, two lawsuits go to trial asking
for the rejection of some 25 000 absentee ballot papers in
predominantly Republican Seminole and Martin Counties.
7 December
Florida Supreme Court hears argument from Gore
that Sauls was in error in upholding the certification of the
Florida results.
8 December
By a 4-3 vote, the Florida Supreme Court rules
in favour of Gore and orders an immediate manual re-count in all
counties with significant numbers of undervotes. Bush appeals the
decision to the US Supreme Court and seeks injunctive relief to
stop the hand re-counts.
Two Florida circuit court judges reject a
request by Gore's to throw out absentee ballots in Seminole and
Martin Counties.
9 December
Florida begins a statewide manual re-count of
undervote ballots.
An Atlanta federal Appeals Court rules in favour
of hand counts but says that new tallies can not be certified until
the US Supreme Court gives permission.
By a 5-4 vote the US Supreme Court grants Bush
request to halt Florida re-counts and sets a hearing on the matter
for two days later.
11 December
The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments from
both the Bush and Gore camps on the Florida re-count. Bush argues
that the hand re-count violates the Constitution's guarantee of
equal protection before the law, while Gore claims that the central
issue is the importance of counting every vote.
12 December
In a 79-41 vote, the Florida legislature
approves a slate of 25 electors pledged to Bush.
The Florida Supreme Court upholds two state
court rulings that allow 25 000 absentee ballots to remain in the
state's official vote tally.
The US Supreme Court votes 5-4 to overturn the
Florida Supreme Court ruling that permitted manual re-counts. The
case was remanded to the Florida court 'for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.'
13 December
Gore concedes the election to the Texas
Governor.
Appendix 3:
Popular Vote and Electoral College Figures
2000 US Presidential
Election
|
Bush (REP)
|
|
Gore (DEM)
|
|
Nader (GRN)
|
Others
|
|
Total
|
|
Votes
|
%
|
EC
|
Votes
|
%
|
EC
|
Votes
|
%
|
Votes
|
%
|
Votes
|
Alabama
|
941 173
|
56.5
|
9
|
692 611
|
41.6
|
|
18 323
|
1.1
|
14 165
|
0.9
|
1 666 272
|
Alaska
|
167 398
|
58.6
|
3
|
79 004
|
27.7
|
|
28 747
|
10.1
|
10 411
|
3.6
|
285 560
|
Arizona
|
781 652
|
51.0
|
8
|
685 341
|
44.7
|
|
45 645
|
3.0
|
19 378
|
1.3
|
1 532 016
|
Arkansas
|
472 940
|
51.3
|
6
|
422 768
|
45.9
|
|
13 421
|
1.5
|
12 652
|
1.4
|
921 781
|
California
|
4 567 429
|
41.7
|
|
5 861 203
|
53.4
|
54
|
418 707
|
3.8
|
118 483
|
1.1
|
10 965 822
|
Colorado
|
883 748
|
50.8
|
8
|
738 227
|
42.4
|
|
91 434
|
5.3
|
27 959
|
1.6
|
1 741 368
|
Connecticut
|
561 094
|
38.4
|
|
816 015
|
55.9
|
8
|
64 452
|
4.4
|
17 964
|
1.2
|
1 459 525
|
Delaware
|
137 288
|
41.9
|
|
180 068
|
55.0
|
3
|
8 307
|
2.5
|
1 866
|
0.6
|
327 529
|
District of Columbia
|
18 073
|
9.0
|
|
171 923
|
85.2
|
3
|
10 576
|
5.2
|
1 322
|
0.7
|
201 894
|
Florida
|
2 912 790
|
48.8
|
25
|
2 912 253
|
48.8
|
|
97 488
|
1.6
|
40 613
|
0.7
|
5 963 144
|
Georgia
|
1 419 720
|
54.7
|
13
|
1 116 230
|
43.0
|
|
13 273
|
0.5
|
47 422
|
1.8
|
2 596 645
|
Hawaii
|
137 845
|
37.4
|
|
205 286
|
55.7
|
4
|
21 623
|
5.9
|
3 793
|
1.0
|
368 547
|
Idaho
|
336 937
|
67.2
|
4
|
138 637
|
27.6
|
|
12 292
|
2.5
|
13 749
|
2.7
|
501 615
|
Illinois
|
2 019 421
|
42.6
|
|
2 589 026
|
54.6
|
22
|
103 759
|
2.2
|
29 909
|
0.6
|
4 742 115
|
Indiana
|
1 245 836
|
56.6
|
12
|
901 980
|
41.0
|
|
18 506
|
0.8
|
32 983
|
1.5
|
2 199 305
|
Iowa
|
634 373
|
48.2
|
|
638 517
|
48.5
|
7
|
29 374
|
2.2
|
13 299
|
1.0
|
1 315 563
|
Kansas
|
622 332
|
58.0
|
6
|
399 276
|
37.2
|
|
36 086
|
3.4
|
14 522
|
1.4
|
1 072 216
|
Kentucky
|
872 520
|
56.5
|
8
|
638 923
|
41.4
|
|
23 118
|
1.5
|
9 465
|
0.6
|
1 544 026
|
Louisiana
|
927 871
|
52.6
|
9
|
792 344
|
44.9
|
|
20 473
|
1.2
|
24 968
|
1.4
|
1 765 656
|
Maine
|
286 616
|
44.0
|
|
319 951
|
49.1
|
4
|
37 127
|
5.7
|
8 123
|
1.2
|
651 817
|
Maryland
|
813 827
|
40.2
|
|
1 144 008
|
56.5
|
10
|
53 768
|
2.7
|
12 132
|
0.6
|
2 023 735
|
Massachusetts
|
878 502
|
32.5
|
|
1 616 487
|
59.8
|
12
|
173 564
|
6.4
|
34 431
|
1.3
|
2 702 984
|
Michigan
|
1 953 139
|
46.1
|
|
2 170 418
|
51.3
|
18
|
84 165
|
2.0
|
24 779
|
0.6
|
4 232 501
|
Minnesota
|
1 109 659
|
45.5
|
|
1 168 266
|
47.9
|
10
|
126 696
|
5.2
|
34 064
|
1.4
|
2 438 685
|
Mississippi
|
572 844
|
57.6
|
7
|
404 614
|
40.7
|
|
8 122
|
0.8
|
8 604
|
0.9
|
994 184
|
Missouri
|
1 189 924
|
50.4
|
11
|
1 111 138
|
47.1
|
|
38 515
|
1.6
|
20 315
|
0.9
|
2 359 892
|
Montana
|
240 178
|
58.4
|
3
|
137 126
|
33.4
|
|
24 437
|
5.9
|
9 245
|
2.2
|
410 986
|
Nebraska
|
433 862
|
62.2
|
5
|
231 780
|
33.3
|
|
24 540
|
3.5
|
6 837
|
1.0
|
697 019
|
Nevada
|
301 575
|
49.5
|
4
|
279 978
|
46.0
|
|
15 008
|
2.5
|
12 409
|
2.0
|
608 970
|
New Hampshire
|
273 559
|
48.2
|
4
|
266 348
|
46.9
|
|
22 188
|
3.9
|
5 700
|
1.0
|
567 795
|
New Jersey
|
1 284 173
|
40.3
|
|
1 788 850
|
56.1
|
15
|
94 554
|
3.0
|
19 649
|
0.6
|
3 187 226
|
New Mexico
|
286 417
|
47.8
|
|
286 783
|
47.9
|
5
|
21 251
|
3.6
|
4 154
|
0.7
|
598 605
|
New York
|
2 403 374
|
35.2
|
|
4 107 697
|
60.2
|
33
|
244 030
|
3.6
|
66 898
|
1.0
|
6 821 999
|
North Carolina
|
1 631 163
|
56.0
|
14
|
1 257 692
|
43.1
|
|
0
|
0.0
|
26 135
|
0.9
|
2 914 990
|
North Dakota
|
174 852
|
60.7
|
3
|
95 284
|
33.1
|
|
9 486
|
3.3
|
8 634
|
3.0
|
288 256
|
Ohio
|
2 350 363
|
50.0
|
21
|
2 183 628
|
46.4
|
|
117 799
|
2.5
|
50 208
|
1.1
|
4 701 998
|
Oklahoma
|
744 337
|
60.3
|
8
|
474 276
|
38.4
|
|
0
|
0.0
|
15 616
|
1.3
|
1 234 229
|
Oregon
|
713 577
|
46.5
|
|
720 342
|
47.0
|
7
|
77 357
|
5.0
|
22 692
|
1.5
|
1 533 968
|
Pennsylvania
|
2 281 127
|
46.4
|
|
2 485 967
|
50.6
|
23
|
103 392
|
2.1
|
41 699
|
0.8
|
4 912 185
|
Rhode Island
|
130 555
|
31.9
|
|
249 508
|
61.0
|
4
|
25 052
|
6.1
|
3 668
|
0.9
|
408 783
|
South Carolina
|
786 892
|
56.9
|
8
|
566 039
|
40.9
|
|
20 279
|
1.5
|
10 832
|
0.8
|
1 384 042
|
South Dakota
|
190 700
|
60.3
|
3
|
118 804
|
37.6
|
|
0
|
0.0
|
6 765
|
2.1
|
316 269
|
Tennessee
|
1 061 949
|
51.1
|
11
|
981 720
|
47.3
|
|
19 781
|
1.0
|
12 731
|
0.6
|
2 076 181
|
Texas
|
3 799 639
|
59.3
|
32
|
2 433 746
|
38.0
|
|
137 994
|
2.2
|
36 258
|
0.6
|
6 407 637
|
Utah
|
515 096
|
66.8
|
5
|
203 053
|
26.3
|
|
35 850
|
4.7
|
16 755
|
2.2
|
770 754
|
Vermont
|
119 775
|
40.7
|
|
149 022
|
50.6
|
3
|
20 374
|
6.9
|
5 137
|
1.7
|
294 308
|
Virginia
|
1 437 490
|
52.5
|
13
|
1 217 290
|
44.4
|
|
59 398
|
2.2
|
25 269
|
0.9
|
2 739 447
|
Washington
|
1 108 864
|
44.6
|
|
1 247 652
|
50.2
|
11
|
103 002
|
4.1
|
27 915
|
1.1
|
2 487 433
|
West Virginia
|
336 475
|
51.9
|
5
|
295 497
|
45.6
|
|
10 680
|
1.6
|
5 472
|
0.8
|
648 124
|
Wisconsin
|
1 237 279
|
47.6
|
|
1 242 987
|
47.8
|
11
|
94 070
|
3.6
|
24 271
|
0.9
|
2 598 607
|
Wyoming
|
147 947
|
69.3
|
3
|
60 481
|
28.3
|
|
0
|
0.0
|
5 188
|
2.4
|
213 616
|
Total
|
50 456 169
|
47.9
|
271
|
50 996 064
|
48.4
|
267
|
2 878 083
|
2.7
|
1 067 508
|
1.0
|
105 397 824
|
Note: EC = Electoral College
votes.
Source:
www.uselectionatlas.org/