Talk:2000 United States presidential election/Archive 3

message: What's with the super young and somewhat anemic picture of Al Gore? That's not what he looked like in 2000, and it's *certainly* not what he looks like now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The paragraph starting with 
:"Due to the narrow margin of the original vote count, Florida law mandated a statewide recount."
seems to be somewhat erroneous in some places. For instance, I'm not sure the statement above is correct. Does anyone have supporting evidence and/or want to verify/edit the paragraph?
Gzuckier 14:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Statewide recount

message: There are conflicting statements in the article:
Al Gore publicly conceded the election after the Supreme Court, in the case Bush v. Gore, voted 7-2 (not 5-4 as often reported) to declare the recount procedure in process unconstitutional because it was not being carried out statewide.
...
This case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 to stop the vote count, which allowed Katherine Harris to certify the election results.
-- Myria 06:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-conflicting information

message: Why did someone change the map on this page?  The one that is currently there is inconsistent with the maps for all other presidential elections.  Yes, I know that on the old image Democratic states are red and Republican blue; however, if you go back and look, that is the coloring scheme used for all of the maps.  In my opinion, the new image looks tacky and unprofessional.  Quandaryus 08:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One DC elector did not cast her vote, as a protest against having no representation in congress. Only two votes from DC were cast. --Golbez 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The NORC recount is not a 'less comprehensive study' than the University of Chicago recount, it IS the University of Chicago recount, which explains why the url is www.norc.uchicago.edu. The intent to include NPOV should not lead to mangling the basic inescapable facts to include the point of view of the ignorant. That's all I have to say about that. Gzuckier 16:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NORC recount

message: This information should be in the article:
Kevin Baastalk 21:11, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
: good idea i'll put it in Gzuckier 14:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Electoral college contest

message: Why are the Republicans blue and the Democrats red in that image? It goes against current practice. 24.54.208.177 01:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the rest of the discussion page.  This question has been asked and answered in "Map colors", above. — DLJessup 13:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blues and reds

message: Bush wasa born in Connecticut. According to his tax returns, his official residence is Illinois. Neither one is Texas.Kuralyov 22:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying in 2000 when he was the incumbent governor of Texas, he claimed Illinois as his official residence?  I would love to see your source. NoSeptember (talk) 22:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Kuralyov, his 2000 Tax returns list the address of his accountants that were preparing his return. If you look at the return (as I assume you have), the address clearly says c/o Northern Trust Company, 50 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60606. The key word there is c/o. He was not claiming to live at his accountants address. Besides, ,that return was prepared on April 10th, 2001. At that point he lived in DC.
Bush was birn in Connecticut. SO WHAT? Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C. but I don't have yet to see someone change his home state from Tennessee to the District of Columbia. I thought it was pretty obvious that "Home State" means the state where the individual's home (primary residence) is. Also important is the state the individual was elected from. In both cases, for Bush this would be Texas.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush's Home State

message: Special:Contributions/User:68.7.179.38 made a change to the text about the recount process.  He deleted some of the material and replaced it with a quote of F.S. Ch. 102.166 2c:
Upon receipt of a proper and timely request, the Elections Canvassing Commission or county canvassing board shall immediately order a manual recount of overvotes and undervotes in all affected jurisdictions.
I have checked the Florida Senate's site and verified that the Florida Statutes read this way now.  However, this whole section has been massively revised since the 2000 election (as witnessed by the many references to July 1, 2002 for hardware and software certification), and I do not believe that this verbiage obtained in 2000.  Therefore, I have reverted the edit until this section can be verified to have existed in the 2000 Florida Statutes.
— DLJessup 22:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  F.S. Ch. 102.166 2C 

message: Therefore, this line is incorrect: "an unexpectedly large number of votes for third-party candidate Patrick Buchanan, although he received roughly the same amount of votes there as he had received in the 1996 election"
Perhaps the writer meant that *the Reform Party* received roughly the same amount of votes there as it had received, with Ross Perot as its standard-bearer, in the 1996 election? If so, this is perhaps worth noting in passing, but it really doesn't prove anything at all, considering the vast differences in philosophy and political affiliation between Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, and the fact that Perot's support nationwide was much stronger than Buchanan's.
: Well, I looked at the article history.  User:68.124.70.64 added the offending line on August 2.
: Buchanan did run in the presidential election of 1996 — but he didn't make it past the primaries.  According to the FEC, Buchanan won 162,770 votes in the Florida Republican primary in 1996, while he won 17,484 in the Florida general election in 2000.  Maybe our anonymous author had heard somebody say something along these lines:  "Buchanan won 162,777 votes in the Florida Republican primary.  We'd expect that most Republican voters would vote for the actual nominee, but there might be, say, 10% of Buchanan voters who couldn't stomach Bush and so would fall back on Buchanan.  Then we'd expect 16,277 votes for Buchanan, which is pretty close to what he actually got."  Play a little telephone game with that, and you get the suspect clause.
: I'm removing the offending clause now. — DLJessup 21:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat Buchanan was not a candidate for president in 1996 

message: I noticed that anonymous User:58.104.17.164 added the tag "citation needed" to the front of this article.  It is unclear what this is supposed to apply to.  I'm going to make a guess that he or she is referring to User:156.110.25.59's recent change of Bush's margin of victory from "several hundred" votes in Florida to "527" votes.  If this is the case, I would refer User:58.104.17.164 to the table in "Florida election results" which is sourced to CBS News State Results for Election 2000.  If not, I ask that he tell us what he is referring to here in the talk page.  In any case, I will remove the "citation needed" tag.
— DLJessup (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The statement was ambiguous.  It used the word "won" but not "majority" or "plurality," the meat of the 2000 election.  Many presidents have won without a majority, including Lincoln (the first time) and Clinton (both times) but they won a plurality in a first-past-the-post system and the electoral college.  In 2000, then governor Bush won the former but not the latter, the key distinction.  Probably best not to mention Jefferson or John Q. Adams and their election by the house.
Also--just realized my own edit's error of not mentioning electoral college.  Will fix now.  Levelistchampion 03:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Minority Fix

message: I'm assuming that "home state" in the voting table refers to a candidate's state of legal residence, not where he was born (otherwise Bush's home state would be Connecticut).  Anyway, Nader is listed as being from Connecticut here (where he was born), but according to the Ralph Nader page, "Nader inhabits a modest apartment in Washington DC".  Should the table be changed to say that he's from DC or does he have legal Connecticut residence for some reason? Or is the Nader page inaccurate?  (I have heard elsewhere that he lives in DC full time, so I'm betting the Nader page has it right.) --Jfruh 14:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nader's home state? 

message: Can anyone explain to me why the colors changed?  Why the switch and how did it happen? 
There appears to be no discussion for the images on the article, so the answer may have been answered, but is not now.
134.250.72.141
: All of the election maps for 1789–1996 were pulled from the National Atlas of the United States, which is in the public domain as a government publication. That source used blue for Republican and red for Democrat. The map for 2000 also used to be pulled from the same site; however, because the terms "red state" and "blue state" were coined as labels for the Republican- and Democratic-leaning areas of the country in that election, the talk page was periodically pelted with complaints about the color scheme on the map until finally an editor came along and replaced it.
: — DLJessup (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blue, red/map colors 

message: The following text appears as the first paragraph of the "Results" subsection:
Vice President Al Gore came in second in the electoral vote even though he received a larger number of popular votes (Gore won 500,000 more popular votes than Bush) and this contributed to the controversy of the election. This was the fourth time that a candidate who did not receive a plurality of the popular vote received a majority of the Electoral College vote, the first time being in the 1824 elections, although popular vote records do not exist for earlier elections and in 1824 many states did not have a Presidential popular vote (in those states, electors were still chosen by the state legislature). Until this election, the 1888 election had been the most recent presidential election in which the winners of the popular and electoral vote differed. It should be pointed out that if the American system were based on the popular vote, rather than the Electoral College, then the focus and methods of campaigning would be different. Because of this, the validity of using popular-vote totals under the present system to predict who would have won an actual popular vote election is questionable.
I am going to cut out the claim that this is the fourth time that a candidate who did not receive a plurality of the PV received a majority of the EV.  First of all, this repeats a claim made in the introduction, and it seems redundant to repeat it here.  Secondly, it would seem to apply for the universe of all U.S. presidential elections and that's not true:  for elections prior to 1824, this is a problematic claim because most states had their legislatures choose the electors.  Even in the 1824 election, a quarter of the states used legislative choice for selecting the electors.  When there was a popular vote, the vote was usually restricted to property-holders.
I am also going to cut out the "It should be pointed out…" statement about the fact that different candidates may have won the PV if it were a direct election.  This is either a defense of Bush or a defense of the Electoral College, and it doesn't seem appropriate here.
— DLJessup (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The property restriction was removed, iirc, in most states, by 1824. JoshNarins 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if if memory serves, by the mid-1820s, only Rhode Island still had property qualifications for sufferage (isn't that part of what led to Dorr's Rebellion? Unschool 07:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the property qualification is relevant.  In the 1876 and 1888 elections, women couldn't vote, and 18-20-year-olds couldn't vote, yet we'd still consider that a "popular vote."  Furthermore, I'd say that sufficient States had instituted the popular vote for us to have a fair idea that it was actually a difference. Zz414 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results and PV loss 

message: Shouldn't this article include a section on the electoral vote certification by congress to which no senator signed by Maxine Waters?
::"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it isn't signed by a member of the Senate." (December 2000, on her objection to the Presidential Election in 2000), to which Al Gore responded "The chair would advise that the rules do care".
: It does.  The second to last paragraph of U.S. presidential election, 2000#Disputes reads:
::: On January 6, 2001, a joint session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one by one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator, and no senator would co-sponsor these objections. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.
: — DLJessup (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add Vote certification by congress? 

message: I believe statements like these to be rather inaccurate.  The election was decided by the millions of votes cast around the country.  If Al Gore had done better in other states, he would have been elected.  It is akin to saying that a basketball game was won by a two-point buzzer beater.  If Team A had to score all the points that it did throughout the game, otherwise Team B would have won. --Mego2005 15:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To some degree I agree, and there's no doubt Gore ran a lackluster campaign (well maybe there is a little, you never know about the media).  But to a large degree it did come down to those votes in Florida and how Florida was decided and no other votes in in other states could change that.  My POV is that it was decided by only five votes (the supreme court), but I don't intend to make that edit. Шизомби 03:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The irony of this statement is that the only way that can be accurate is if one has full belief in the accuracy of the final recount. I know of no one who has full faith in the recount. --67.105.241.226 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decided by only 537 votes" 

message: I added some stuff to correct situations were less important
issues were emphasized. Would a link to the FL Supreme Court
order, be appropiate here? --CorvetteZ51 13:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes 

message: Maybe I didnt read to accurate, but my 'find' function also couldnt find what the voter turnout was. Anybody know? The Minister of War (Peace) 11:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnout? 

message: There is a part of "Disputes" section that reads: "On the surface, Bush appeared sincere about reaching across party lines and bridge a divided America, stating that "the President of the United States is the President of every single American, of every race and every background." However, his actions in the following months, before September 11, 2001, and after, would call this sincerity into question."   ---  This is a statement of opinion and not fact (unless you can cite "his actions" that lead you to prove that he was insincere) Jimspilman 17:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush's speech accepting the nomination had a quote to this effect. If that quote can be found, it can simply be stated that 'This is what he said', without respect to what he's done, and completely avoids an opinion problem. Skybunny 00:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bush appeared sincere about reaching across party lines" 

message: Just a couple of comments: 
There is inconsistency among the candidates listed from the parties; some have there degrees (JD, Phd) listed after their names, while others do not.  Either everyone should be identified with their degres, or no one should (e.g., Elizabeth Dole is also a lawyer and thus should have a JD after her name).
Secondly, under the Democrat section there is a statement "...only two entered the contest..."  However, four candidates are listed above.  That statement should be clarified to be more consistent with the list that proceeds it. --Mego2005 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominations section

message: I didn't really notice untill I went to edit a change... but holy-moley this article is huge.  Compared to the other presidential election pages, it's roughly twice as big.  And really... this page is almost entirely about Florida.
It seems like the 2000 Florida electoral vote should have its own article.  However, this article has been so dominated by that one issue -- without Florida, it's roughly a 5 paragraph article.  Does anyone else think pulling Florida into its own article is a good idea? Questionc 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YES. Gzuckier 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is way too long and focused 

message: I am forced to wonder why Ross Perot is listed in the "results" field even though he only received 9 write-in votes. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I went back and looked and it was added by an anon one day, so I've just gone ahead and removed it. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ross Perot

message: Removed opening paragraph in Nominations.  It is off-topic and biased since
(1) It made a general subjective statement about the Republican Party as a whole, and
(2) It contained an implication that it would be erroneous to think that the American people were "sick" of a Democrat Administration since during Clinton's Administration there was a budget surplus.
67.185.99.246 21:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations section 

message: Changed the opening paragraph.  The initial statement about GWB having "won" the 25 electoral votes sounds GOP-biased and the follow up in parentheses about how by other standards he wouldn't have sounds like a Dem-biased reply.
Rather, GWB was effectively awarded the 25 electoral votes by virtue of halting the recount.  However, according to an independent study reported by USA Today on Feb. 26th, 2001 in which "USA Today, The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder hired the national accounting firm BDO Seidman to examine all 60,000 undervotes in Florida's 67 counties," Gore would have had a "net gain of 49 votes if the most lenient standard -- counting even faintly dimpled chads had been used."
  
67.185.99.246 22:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recount methods 

message: The most recent edit provides information on uncounted absentee ballots. I believe that this information should be either sourced or removed. In the United States, absentee ballots are counted unless they are individually challenged for some type of irregularity. The impact of absentee ballots on the outcome is not a factor in whether they are counted or not. Chronicler3 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be wrong about that. At least some debate: Gzuckier 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe so then. I have participated in counting ballots in two elections, and I am familiar with elections in three of the 11 largest states. What I posted reflects what takes place in these three states. Chronicler3 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And maybe not... I spent a while searching via Google on this last night and couldn't find anything really solid other than the kind of generally suggestive stuff I linked above, so I guess I will go in and remove it after all unless/until somebody comes up with something definite. Gzuckier 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except I can't find where it is. Maybe it already got removed. Gzuckier 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncounted Absentee ballots 

message: There was discussion of splitting Florida content off a couple months ago, and no objection to doing this. I freely admit that the continuity of both articles will probably suffer for a short time; however, lacking objections to this split, it's my belief that this will ultimately improve both articles, much as in the case of splitting Hurricane Katrina and Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, where the latter article allows more careful focus than the parent article could easily support. I'm not wedded to the article name United States presidential election, 2000 Florida results; please move it if you want. Skybunny 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off Florida content 

message: I really think we should have a map like the 92 and 96 election, which looks better than this one and 04. 81.154.20.166 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited Map

message: I recall at the time that there was some discussion as to 'what if' the election could not be resolved by the Supreme Court in time & the Presidential line of succession. Does anyone have any sources re that discussion?--ScMeGr 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What If?

message: OK, so Gore got 0.5% more votes than Bush. Now we assume a 1% voting error rate. Gore still had more people vote for him, unless somehow 75% of disqualified votes were from Bush voters. I removed the sentence saying that you can't claim he won the popular vote. Blah42 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of course Gore won the popular vote 

message: The article states that some credited Bush's victory in South Carolina to the fact that only registered Republicans could vote, thus negatings McCain's appeal among independents.  South Carolina is an open primary state.  Wikipedia's own stub titled "open primary" lists South Carolina as such.  That sentence needs to be taken out, but I'll leave it to someone more familiar with that section, as it will require rewording of other parts of the paragraph. ClickClack27 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Republican Party Nomination

message: On the descrption for the map image, the word "Blue" is red, and "Red" is green. What are the correct colors? This is very confusing. Thanks!!--CJ King 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much!!--CJ King 16:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Image descriptions 

message: Edited the part about Bush being defeated by Gore. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. Perhaps this page should be protected. Ryratt 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, some Democrats are still bitter.... 

message: I just noticed that on the map blue=reps and red=dems, while in the "close states" list it is the other way around.  This is confusing.  Shouldn't the colors be consistent? Wrad 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The strong association of each party with a specific color is a recent (past two elections) phenomenon. The source of the maps is one reason for the use of colors as they show on the map. See Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Incorrect colour scheme and look at the maps used for other earlier elections at commons:Category:US presidential election maps. The inconsistency within a single article could be a bit confusing though, and the map used in this article has been switched back and forth multiple times over this issue. NoSeptember 06:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, whatever is done, it should be consistent. Wrad 06:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color problem 

message: One paragraph, two items. 
"The vote was certified by Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State and a Republican who had publicly supported Bush during the campaign. Additionally, Bush's younger brother, Jeb Bush, was the governor of Florida and this led to rumors that he had somehow "fixed" the election results to favor his brother." 
Can someone tell me...
- How KatHar's political leanings and background became a relevant part of the 2000 Pres. election? I can see how her certification of the vote is relevant, but the fact that she is a Republican doesn't seem to fit into this context for any reason other than to suggest she acted in error.
- How is a rumor about Jeb relevant info? Would anyone expect to see this line in a "real" encyclopedia?   
We have differences about the phrase I cut/you kept with reference to Kat and Jeb in the Florida section. I'd love to discuss it. Nosferatublue 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point. Let's not be naive and pretend that someon'e political leanings doesn't influence how they view a matter or conduct their actions. The relevancy of these leanings is obvious. Griot 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Note the addition of sources. I hope it clears this up.Griot 18:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The language is a little over the top, true. But The Nation is a respected magazine, as is Salon. Moreover, these magazines aren't subject to the same staid rules about language as an encyclopedia is. We can take out the word "rumors" if you want. I'll change it to "allegations." No need to apologize. Griot 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WAIT.  That user has a point: This article isn't accurately representing the situation.  However, the implied slant is incorrect.  Katherine Harris was not JUST a Republican who supported Bush.  She was named a co-chairman on Bush's campaign.  So in all fairness, this article ought to say A LOT MORE about the "allegations," as her position is so obviously a conflict of interest.  It is detrimental to censor out information regarding the political leanings of Katherine Harris, especially given her empowered role in the 2000 election.  All relevant information should be included, as long as it is cited.
Rob Shepard 11:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political leanings (Florida)

message: Just something I caught, it states in this section:  Gore balanced Bush by sweeping the Northeastern United States (with the sole exception of New Hampshire), the industrialized Upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast states, including California.  Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't every state "industrialized" to a greater/lesser extent?  It seems kind of redundant.  Secondly, given that Gore did not win Indiana, which is commonly considered a part of the "Upper Midwest," this statement implies that Indiana is not industrialized.  In my opinion, "industrialized" should be omitted, as it's either redundant or not factual.  GregTheVirus 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Election section 

message: I don't understand this.
: Does this article help you any? --SGT Tex 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please have an explanation of what the 'Electoral vote' is? 

message: I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article.  I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed.  I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go.  I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election.  Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon.  Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time.  We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee.  If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections.   SpiderMMB 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Winner/Runner-Up

message: I hate to ask, but why does it say "gained" in the lead paragraph?  Is there a reason it doesn't say "won?" ThreeE 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gained? 

message: Just before the table of results with different counting methods, there's this line:  Again, Bush received more votes than Gore.  This is not what the table shows -- it shows that depending on the method, the results differ.  This difference is also what the NORC results show-- please refer to table 11 in the articles link on the NORC page (linked from this section of the main articlehttp://www.amstat.org/misc/PresidentialElectionBallots.pdf(this is a huge .pdf file). Why do you think the change to say that differing methods produce different results was wrong?  Merrily 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my revert was a kneejerk response to a line being 'flipped' in meaning by an anonymous editor (at least, at the time of the edit, it was by a raw IP). furthermore, the edit had a 'signature' line for the IP dumped into the article, which is inappropriate. the table as presented is not clear at all. what it needs is a proper explanation and legend, rather than any editorializing about the results. Anastrophe 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I didn't see it as flipped, as I didn't change from one candidate to the other--and the sig line was a definite mistake, so thanks for catching that.  (I had to go through the retrieve password process to sign in, so I didn't do it for the first edit.)  Would you prefer if I make this table look more like that in the article (table 11), which shows that both candidates end up ahead (4 for bush, 5 for gore for the unanimous column, out of the 9 different ways shown in the table).  Frankly, I don't know where the current numbers came from -- I was assuming from somewhere in the data tables on that page, but I wasn't able to find it in a cursory look.  The table in the published article might be more supportable in any event. --Merrily 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On further thought, maybe the table could be deleted altogether, and just the summary of table 11 could be put in instead,  Something like, The NORC reanalysis showed that the winner of the election in Florida depended on the recount method; out of nine different proposed methods, four showed Bush winning and five gave the victory to Gore. --Merrily 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've yet to download the pdf - my first attempt aborted, now i'm using a download manager, and it is dreadfully slow. in any event, i frankly think that anything would be an improvement over the existing little chart, which is clear as mud to me. Anastrophe 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's hideously large (although not many pages long), which seemed to me to defeat a main purpose of pdf files.  Most of it is about reliability, but at least table 11 shows actual results; since it's the only article there, it's what I used.  I'll give you time to look before I go ahead and change the main content. -- Merrily 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: holy cow, i finally looked at it. i was expecting something on the order of 500 pages. this may set a record for absurd inflation of digital data through incompetent encoding. ironic in a strange sense. anyway, use your own good judgement, i won't get a chance to read the document with any care for at least 18 hours, so feel free to move forward. ideally, quote and cite from the document for whatever conclusion - or anti-conclusion they came to. Anastrophe 06:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recount

message: Regarding "It was the third time in American history that a candidate won the vote in the Electoral College without receiving a plurality of the popular vote; it also happened in the elections of 1876 and 1888. Coincidentally, it was always the Republican candidate that ultimately gained the Presidency."
The problem with the coincidence is that it is non-notable. For that matter, the fact that the republican party of the late 19th century bears virtually no similarity to the party of today further renders it lacking in any probative value. I've removed the line. Absent some reliable source indicating a basis for notability, I see no reason for it to be restored. Anastrophe 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidences 

message: The percentages in the infobox for this article are rounded to 2 decimal places, while every other one is rounded to 1 decimal place.
The percentages are: 47.87% & 48.38%
which rounded are: 47.9% & 48.4%
I made the change, but User:Anastrophe. reverted it.  How is this inconsistency a) beneficial, and b) controversial?  Either this should be rounded to 1 decimal place, or all of the other articles should be rounded to 2 decimal places in the infobox.  Either I am missing some previous argument and this was previously decided, or something is fishy.  I would appreciate input here, especially from User:Anastrophe..  Regards.--Old Hoss 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "every other one is rounded to 1 decimal place". can you provide evidence to support that? or are you referring to a random sample of articles pertaining to elections that you've reviewed? The 2000 election was extremely contentious - this is a matter of record. it was arguably one of the most controversial election in american history. considering the extremely thin/slim/narrow margins by which the election fell, it seems appropriate in this article to use the two decimal place value. that said, i'm not married to it; if there's consensus with other editors that this article should fall in line with 'every other' article that references elections, i'm fine with it. Anastrophe 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did go through every article, thank you, and the evidence is those articles!  Why are the '68, '60, 1888, 1884, 1880, 1844 & 1824 articles not 2 places?  They were as close or closer than this one.  I just do not see why the inconsistency is required for this one article, other than it is recent.  This election was arguably far from the most controversial election, it is just the most recent controversial election. I am not trying to stir up anything, but I did not anticipate controversy on this.  I will leave it for a few days, unless no one else objects.  Regards.--Old Hoss 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the additional decimal places may simply be a reflection of the trend toward greater accuracy in results.  i would question whether the years you list are the only other articles on elections on wikipedia...? i've seen election results listed with no decimal places in various articles. there may not be a WP:RS for two decimal places worth of accuracy for the older elections. as i said, it was one of the most controversial elections; i did not claim it was the 'most'. that said, i can't see a rational argument in favor of displaying results with less accuracy than is available. Anastrophe 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: fair enough indeed. and in fact, i just realized that two decimal place value is not cited at all. so, on that basis alone, it should be dropped to the (elsewhere cited) one decimal place. we are now in agreement! Anastrophe 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in rounding percentages