Saturday, December 30, 2006

A Clarification Is Needed

I've been hearing people call Gerry Ford "our only unelected president". Sorry, this isn't correct. One could make a case that Veeps who took over for assassinated presidents were "elected" because they were part of a ticket...I understand that. But what about 2000? Love him or hate him (and I worry about anyone who still would fall into the "love" category), Bush didn't "win" the election in 2000. He did, however, get SELECTED by the Supreme Court to serve in the Oval Office. There was no winner in 2000, therefore, the person who took over in January 2001 was not "elected". I'd say the same damn thing if Al Gore would have been selected by the Court.


Anon E. Mouse said...

Bj Sez: "Bush didn't "win" the election in 2000. "

I sez: Do you want to apologize for beening a complete fool now, or wait and do it in person, next time I see you?

A: Yes, Bush won the election. he got the most votes in the Electoral College in 2000.

B: Bush has also received a majorty of, not only Electoral, but POPULAR, votes during the 2004 election.

C: How about the elections of 1800, 1824 and 1876 as examples of "unelected presidents." As a matter of fact, by electoral college margins, the 2000 election ranks 4th. (2004 ranks 7th and 1976 ranks 9th).
BJ - you simply don't know your history.

BJ Sez: "I'd say the same damn thing if Al Gore would have been selected by the Court."

I sez: Somehow, I doubt that.

BJ Stone said...

SB, your point A: No, he did not win the 2000 election. He did not receive the majority of votes. He won the electoral college ONLY after the Supreme Court stopped a recount, which - if you knew your history - would have declared Mr. Gore the winner. definition of "election": 1. the selection of a person or persons for office by vote.

The vote favored Gore. Even without Florida. The vote favored Gore. But our electoral college, only with Florida included, BTW, favored Bush.

So he wasn't "elected by the people" in any way.

Your point B: What does 2004 have anything to do with 2000?

Your point C: The MARGIN of electoral college victory means absolutely nothing. How stupid is this: Hypothetical situation here: candidate A could win 100% of Nebraska's 500,000 votes and get all five of Nebraska's electoral votes. Candidate B could win 250,001 of 500,000 votes in Utah...and get ALL FIVE of Utah's electoral points. So, the candidate with 749,999 votes gets the same electoral votes as the one who got 250,001. Um, hello, there's something seriously wrong with that.

Be that as it may, only three times in U.S. history has the candidate not won the most votes but won the electoral college: 1876, 1888, and 2000. And in both of the 19th century cases, the elections were decided without going to the Supreme Court and whining (Bush team) about a recount. As a matter of fact, the disgusting result of 1876 was the compromise worked out by the two major parties' white leaders, which effectively got rid of many blacks who had won elections post-Civil War, and eventually led to blacks not being allowed to vote.

I know my history, thankyouverymuch.

And regarding if I'd say the same thing? You don't know me as well as I thought you did. C'mon, now that I know who you are I'd think you'd be the first one to give me the benefit of the doubt on that one after all the times we've talked over the years.

Vonster said...

Don't waste your time Anon. Revisionist history is a hopeless addiction and BJ's well on board.