Talk:2000 United States presidential election in Florida

message: I could be wrong here but I'm questioning the validity of this statement.   
"If the board discovered an error, they were then authorized to recount the ballots. [3]
The canvassing board did not discover any errors in the tabulation process in the initial mandated recount."
First of all, which canvassing board are we reffering to?  One can't just say "the canvasing board." 
Obviously some of the canvassing boards thought a recount was in order.  It is worth checking if Florida law allowed for recounts in any other circumstances other than error.  This issue has been contested in the past, I'm not sure of the correct answer.  Finally the second external link on the 2000 election page is "Full Video of how the 2000 Elections Were Stolen."  This is very partisan to be listed as the #2 external link. Efficiency84 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! The only suggestion I would make is to make sure that anything added is sourced by a quality secondary source (as some of what you said above is). As is a standard in many articles, if it isn't sourced, it's original research and will likely be removed. The Eliahn sources look fair. On the other hand, the USS Cole point may or may not be true, but isn't justified specific to Florida with a source so it's pretty much speculation. (To say what you have, you need a source that says, basically, 'The lack of response to the USS Cole caused change X in polls between times X and Y, and those polls are sourced here.') Good luck! Skybunny 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Buchanan's votes are almost entirely gone.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.100.85 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: County by County votes

message: Discussing the ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore....
"This ruling stopped the vote recount, allowing Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to certify the election results. This allowed Florida's electoral votes to be cast for Bush, making him the winner."
This statement in incorrect. Bush was certified the winner of the state of Florida on November 26, 2000, not December 12, of the same year.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/26/presidential.election/index.html
The author leads us to believe that the Supreme Court's decision made Bush the winner. That is false on two levels. First, as I pointed out, Bush was already the certified winner of the state at the time of the court's ruling. Second, the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to determine legal slates of electors, not the unelected courts. In turn, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 as to lay out the rules on how to determine legal slates of electors.
No matter what the ruling of the courts, Bush win Florida until Congress says otherwise.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/legal_12-12.html 
Rustymustang (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Timeline Section

message: This article covers many of the events during and after the election, and their impact, but it does not cover factors that occurred before the election that specifically impacted Florida voters, such as:
Republican Operatives
Fake "protests" were held by Republican party operatives in order to put pressure on county election boards. Nicholastarwin (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! The only suggestion I would make is to make sure that anything added is sourced by a quality secondary source (as some of what you said above is). As is a standard in many articles, if it isn't sourced, it's original research and will likely be removed. The Eliahn sources look fair. On the other hand, the USS Cole point may or may not be true, but isn't justified specific to Florida with a source so it's pretty much speculation. (To say what you have, you need a source that says, basically, 'The lack of response to the USS Cole caused change X in polls between times X and Y, and those polls are sourced here.') Good luck! Skybunny 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics Not Covered

message: I removed :Image:nytimes.svg from the article, on several grounds. The first is that it's somewhat POV, since it only shows scenarios where Gore won the election, while there are other reasonable scenarios where Bush won. More importantly, it's a bit confusing, since it's not totally clear what the bars mean. Finally, the report that the image is based on doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article text. — PyTom 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed [[:Image:nytimes.svg]] 

message: What was the parent article for this article?
~ender 2007-06-17 10:57:AM MST
* United States presidential election, 2000 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent Article? 

message: At the time, there was plenty of talk of this allegation, but where did it start? It really needs a better source. Reference note 5 leads to a January 5, 2001 BBC article by Malcolm Brabant, and it certainly is not BBC's best stuff.
The article reports Jeb Bush being served a subpoena to testify before a civil rights commission, but the commission itself is not even named. There are no direct quotes. There is one reference to a claim by Florida State Senator Daryll Jones that Florida highway patrols had been ordered to set up roadblocks in black precincts. There is no information regarding when or where Senator Jones made his claim, where the roadblocks occurred, or who gave the order. This reads like village gossip.--Geometricks 06:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roadblocks Suppressing Black Votes 

message: The following paragraph:
"Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, contracted with a new company (DBT Online Inc.), at an increase of $4.294 million to have the "scrub list"'s re-worked. Nearly 1 percent of Florida's electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters - 96,000 citizens were listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls. (For instance, many had names similar to actual felons, some listed "felonies" were dated years in the future, and some apparently were random.) In some cases, those on the scrub list were given several months to appeal, and many successfully reregistered and were allowed to vote. However, most were not told that they weren't allowed to vote until they were turned away at the polls. The company was directed not to use cross-checks or its sophisticated verification plan (used by the FBI). [9]"
contains a factual error.
The number of citizens listed as felons and removed from the voting rolls was 57,746, NOT 96,000. Even 96,000 people were only .6% of the Florida population at the time, hardly "nearly 1 percent" claimed in the paragraph. The actual 57,746 were less than .4% of the Florida population.
The correct number is listed in the article about ChoicePoint ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint ) and is confirmed by the United States Civil Rights Commission in its official report on the 2000 Presidential Elections ( http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm ), which this article references. This report also gives a different number for the contract with DBT - $3.1 million instead of $4.294 million in the paragraph.
Furthermore, the paragraph in question references the article by Gregory Palast in Salon magazine ( http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html ) as source. (Palast's name is misspelled as 'Palas' in the list of references, by the way.) The article, however, does not contain the 96,000 number. It also does not contain anything about DBT 'being directed' not to use its verification plan.
69.227.2.211 (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error in the section 'Controversial issues in Florida' 

message: I just wonder why one study (which has Gore winning total recounts) has a huge, authoritative table while the two other studies, with mixed results, don't?  We should delete the large table and incorporate it into the article, or make a table for each of the three studies.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recount section bias? 

message: The following appears in the "controversial issues..." section
"her dispatching of a lawyer to Palm Beach county to convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount (despite thousands of protesters within the"
"convince the voting board of voting down a manual recount"?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?  
I'd edit it if it made any damn sense at all
plzkthx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.93.86 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  voting board of voting?  WTF?11111@!!! 

message: This section needs to be deleted or redone.. it says Bush thrashed Gore in *every* county, and still won by only 537 votes? --ti 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote counts have been fixed (but are now formatted ugly again). It was a good faith mistake mentioned at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 31#Florida 2000 election results. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Results by county totally wrong!

message: Just a stylistic point, but is it entirely nessecary to refer to the Supreme Court as SCOTUS? The addition of yet another unnessecary acronym into an already complicated article does nothing but impair readability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.79.93 (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCOTUS? 

message: This edit is fully supported by the source, which states that on November 19, 2001:. . . Senator Joseph I. Lieberman appeared on national television and said that election officials should give the "benefit of the doubt" to military voters.
Until then, the Democrats had conducted a full-scale effort to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures. But on that morning, with Republicans attacking the Gore-Lieberman campaign for eliminating the votes of hundreds of men and women in the armed forces, Mr. Lieberman effectively disavowed the strategy.
"There was some gasping," recalled David Ginsberg, the research director for the Gore campaign, who watched it with other aides at Democratic headquarters in Washington. "People said: 'Wait a minute. That's really off. That's not what we're saying.' We could never effectively communicate why we were right because we got ourselves in a position where it looked like we were trying to throw out military ballots when we were trying to throw out illegal ballots."
(Emphasis added)
How does the source article differ from and not support the following edit? "Full-scale efforts by the Democrats to persuade counties to disqualify any overseas ballots that lacked postmarks or witness signatures were effectively halted on November 19, 2000, by their own vice-presidential candidate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who appeared on national television and disavowed his own campaign's strategy of challenging such illegal ballots."
It does not. This was a plan by the Gore campaign, and the suggestion that the article somehow "clearly" states that not all Democrats agreed with it (other than Lieberman, obviously) is utterly belied by the article. The reference in the article to "internal differences" among Democrats is in connection with how aggressive they should be "in their approach to Florida's disputed vote"  -- that is, their overall approach in comparison to the approach of the Bush campaign. However, as the article expressly states, "the Democrats had their own aggressive and far-reaching plan to maximize Gore votes in Democratic counties, while suppressing likely Bush votes from overseas." (Emphasis added) Jhw57 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This current issue is with your characterization, just as David Ginsberg's quote disagrees with the characterization at the time. The action was to enforce exiting requirements for all overseas ballots. Separate from your edits, the rest of the bullet is entriely unsourced and contributes a certain tone to yours when read in context. I've made what will hopefully be found as constructive edits and if need be we can continue the discussion. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you can say the quotation from David Ginsberg differs from the edit I made -- he said that the Gore campaign was trying to throw out illegal ballots, not military ballots. Admittedly, the edit was not clear as to why Lieberman disavowed that strategy, and to that end your newest edit is a welcome clarification.  I've reworked it somewhat to make it somewhat clearer that Lieberman's statement effectively ended the strategy of throwing out illegal ballots, although I think that is an important point that perhaps could be made more forcefully. Jhw57 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman's role in halting Democrats' challenge to counting overseas ballots 

message: Under United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000#Controversial_issues_in_Florida the first bullet point says "All five major networks made the incorrect assumption that all of Florida's polls closed at 7:00 p.m. EST, which was not the case." I'm just wondering which ones are the "five major networks"? This probably should be a link to another article if we are going to use this phrase and explain it out. Not that I disagree with it, I just don't know the 5 majors and a quick search didn't help. Strawberry Island (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a redlink to five major networks fails to shed much light on this... it doesn't sound like a particularly promising article title given that the list of major networks has undoubtedly changed over time, and will continue changing in the future.  The distinction between TV networks, print media, and online media is getting fuzzier all the time, making the task of itemizing the "major networks" even more difficult. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the five major networks? 

message: It is frequently claimed that the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court was a strictly partisan one. And indeed it may have been. But I think the following bears noting: at the time, there were 7 registered Republicans on the Court and 2 registered Democrats. How is that along party lines? Matt2h (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court 

message: In the paragraph about TV reporting that polls had closed when they were still open in the Central Time Zone, I've removed an erroneous statistic concerning the population of the affected counties.  Previously, the article stated erroneously that the panhandle counties comprised "65% of the electorate," but that is inconceivable because the ten affected counties comprise less than 10% of the population (see  and ).  I checked the linked source but did not find the claim about 65% of the electorate, so I removed the statistic from the article.TVC 15 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  panhandle population 

message: Under Controversial Issues in Florida:
"Jeb Bush, the brother of George W. Bush, was governor of Florida, leading some Gore advocates to make various allegations of impropriety, especially due to their joint campaigning for the Republican vote in Florida and Jeb Bush's assurances to George W. Bush that the Republicans would win Florida. While it is typical for sitting governors to campaign strongly on behalf of the candidate with the same party affiliation, it is unusual for the governor to be related by blood to the candidate and in a position to influence the election in his favor. Some democracy advocates have taken offense at his request for the removal of Florida election officials explaining voting/recount law on TV.[clarification needed][citation needed]"
Why is Jeb Bush even mentioned? There is no citation here that he was even brought up as a legitimate concern, nor wasthe Executive Branch of the State of Florida ever considered as an issue in the subsequent Supreme Court case. It was based on the State Legislature and the State Supreme Court.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The thinking is that he may have had some power over the ballot as it was being cast, like conduct at the polling stations that sort of thing.  There were even wild rumors and allegations along those lines.  (People being turned away from polling stations or given absurd requirements to enter them.  See "Roadblocks Suppressing Black Votes" above.)  However I haven't heard anything to remotely substantiate those claims. 68.55.199.40 (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeb Bush

message: The table shows the vote totals for each candidate as 2912790 + 2912253 + 97421 + 17484 + 16415 + 2281 + 1378 + 3028 = 5963050. Yet the bottom row of the table shows the total across candidates as 5963110 (a discrepancy of 60). Jzimba (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Certified Results: The numbers don't add up 

message: Yes, I see the remark about the incorrect assumption of polls having closed statewide in Florida (when they were open another hour in the far west due to Central Time Zone).  Just wanted to point out that it will probably look odd to some people that Florida has both an Atlantic coast and part of the state in Central Time Zone.  The time zone boundary runs down the Georgia/Alabama border before it cuts across Florida on its way to the Gulf of Mexico.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment about geography 

message: I think this should be changed to "never undertaken by officals"
but i couldn't find the edit button for that table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampfkegel (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "never undertaken" 

message: A paragraph going on about impropriety for Gov Jeb to campaign for his bro, was deleted.  There is no law vs a brother governor campaigning for a brother.   Also, the paragraph had no citation to support it. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Paragraph Deleted

message: " In a vast minority of cases" -- LOL.  I must remember that one; it is funny.  (EnochBethany (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxymoron Statement

message: A series of edits was recently . Much of the added material appears to be original research, or cites dubious sources such as americanthinker.com. I believe these edits should be reverted but thought I should bring it up here before doing so. Do others agree?Wukai (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work!Wukai (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Per WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY policy americanthinker.com cannot be used as a source. We can use the studies it cites, however. Which I did include based on your edits in the appropriate section. Also - you cannot plagiarize even if you cite the source per WP:COPYPASTE policy. Doing so falls under the category of speedy deletion. If you see other plagiarism either in this article or others, you do not need to get consensus, you can immediately delete it. Just be sure to identify the source of the plagiarism so other users can verify. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The goal of this should be to explain the controversy to the reader, not take sides. Perhaps if we reworded it to say something like this? "Democrats argued that the unusually high number of votes for Buchanan, and the proximity of his name to Al Gore's confused voters into mistakenly voting for Buchanan rather than Gore. Republicans countered that the same ballot was used in the previous election cycle, and no problems were reported. Plus - Republicans also argued that there's no way to determine that the voter made a mistake based on the ballot." Or something to that affect. I certainly agree the article should in no way treat it as fact that the votes cast for Buchanan were definitely votes intended for Gore. But the article should explain the controversy to the reader. ( I believe this answers your bullet point below as well) CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by 2605:6000:9fc0:15:3998:3e0:e909:d23c and Phideaux2014 

message: I removed statements in the election night section that contradicted statements in the Recount Irregularities section. Please refrain from providing an analysis of the election in this section as it's supposed to be a simple narrative of what happened that night. Keep analysis to the Recount Irregularities and other sections. Also please double check to make sure the topic you're discussing isn't already mentioned elsewhere. Thanks! CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that is completely without a source can be removed. If you think you can support it with a source, you're also welcome to do that. This article is supposed to simply state what happened. Not get into a needless debate of whether or not the arguments presented by either side were accurate. The edits you provided were citing studies done AN ENTIRE YEAR after the fact. Needless to say, these studies did not occur on election night, hence they should go in the post election analysis section. But, as you look at that section, the studies you cite are already cited in their entirety with the complete results shown. Hence, the removal of that from the election night section entirely. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I misunderstood - could you please cite the content from the election night section that you feel is post election night? (Note: Not the source, but the content). I re-read the section and I realized that some of the sentences towards the end should probably be reworded - particularly the part that notes the finality of vote totals. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Generally speaking, a few days is a reasonable time to wait. Although it's usually better to wait for input from other users before enacting it. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with that statement, but I'm not married to it. If you want to remove it, feel free. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: No need to ask for permission here, you are welcome to place citation needed tags wherever you feel it is appropriate. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Feel free to add citation needed tag, or work on supplying sources with exact figures. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: That's fine with me. Either find a source that supports the claim. Or remove it. I'd probably suggest using a citation needed tag, and then give it some time. If no one supplies a proper source, we can remove. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the change - but I'd suggest looking into the matter more. If both claims can be supported by sources then per WP:NPOV we should simply cite both and let the reader decide for themselves. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Agreed CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I would reword it to simply state that once it became clear Florida was going to determine the winner, the media focused it's attention on Florida's count. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: That's fine. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Multiple different ways to take this. To me the "Recount Irregularities" section is a section that essentially lists Democrat's grievances with the result since, obviously, it favored Bush by a slim margin. We can relabel the section to simply state that it's a listing of Democrat's arguments to the recount, add in Repbulican complaints, or strike it altogether and place any content that isn't already there, into the Controversial Issues section. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: No, that's a valid source. Remember - this is not an endorsement that the statement is true, simply an argument made by Democrats at that time. We should reword so it's clear that this was an argument made by the Democrats - not necessarily true. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Again, reword to make it clear this is an argument made by Democrats, not suggesting this is a true objective fact. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Again, it was a controversial issue. This is simply stating what happened and who said what. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Citation needed tag, Katherine Harris was definitely under fire (whether it was reasonable or not) so there should be a bullet point about it. If no source can be found or supplied, strike unsourced content.CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Make it clear that this was the argument Democrats used. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Same as above CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Same as above CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I think it should be removed. I don't think this argument really had that big of an impression in the national debate. More of a blip on the radar. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Bullet point should be expanded to list both Democrat and Republican arguments about the issues. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Again, this was a controversial issue that did come up and hit the airwaves. So it should stay. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Spelling corrections are considered minor changes. You don't need to seek permission - if there's a grammar or spelling mistake feel free to correct. And no, the Florida SC came under criticism by many leading Republican spokesmen, including (then) Governor George W. Bush himself. Furthermore - although a court has the judicial authority to act on it's own motion, it was, in the Republican's view, a clear indication that the Florida SC was acting in a biased manner granting things that the Gore legal team was not even asking for. This is the same opinion that was repeated by multiple legal experts at this time across multiple major news channels and networks. Again, it's not our job to decide whether or not the argument is accurate, only to note that it happened. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Again, it was an argument made by Republicans. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: That's fine. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Please find reliable sources for this, then feel free to include. You have to have a link to the source. Also - write in your own words. Don't copy paste from another site as it will be immediately removed. I'd say something like "Republicans countered that even if the butterfly ballot did cost Gore votes, these were more then offset, by.." etc. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Night Section 

message: Shouldn't this article be merged with the Florida Election Recount article? I've never done a merge before so looking for other editors with more experience for guidance. Thoughts on this? CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Request 

message: The recount process is just a portion of what happened during the election in Florida. Therefore the content on the other page should be included in this one. This has been proposed previously, but it was abandoned for some reason. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Florida election recount]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States presidential election in Florida, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080124154506/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/election/electiontime.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While Nader did not get five percent of the vote, he did get far more of the vote than the margin between the two candidates and his participation in the election (and the share of the vote he got) is considered by many to be determinative of the entire election. For that reason, I think that his portion. of the vote should be included in the infobox. C2H6O2 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard for inclusion is 5%, and Nader didn't come remotely close to that. Given how close this race is, literally any of third party candidates could have swung it. By the standard you lay above, we'd need to include all of them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this standard stated?  I'm pretty much neutral on whether to include Nader here, leaning toward leaving him off.  But I can imagine a parliamentary election where the governing coalition depends on a number of small parties, some of which get less than 5%, or an instant runoff election where the order in which minor-party candidates are eliminated is crucial.  In such hypothetical cases, it would definitely be advisable to include the decisive parties in the infobox.  I don't see any standard specified at Template:Infobox_election.  But it does say that the template is designed to accommodate up to nine nominees or parties, which seems as though it would likely include some below 5%. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not include Nader in infobox? 

message: My understanding is that a key fact of this election is that a substantial number of ballots failed to record voter intent in a way that could be counted.  First, the butterfly ballot had a line from Gore's name to the punch hole for PatricK Buchanan.  Second, the chads from earlier ballots accumulated in the punch-card holders used in at least one county, so that the chads from later ballots were not detached when the voter punched the ballot.  I came to this article to look up how many ballots were in each category, and didn't find it.  I hope someone can find this information from reliable sources, and incorporate it into the article. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter intent vs legally valid ballot 

message: Michael Moore is the opposite of objective and more a far-left propagandist and therefore hardly a credible source at all. 93.206.59.186 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask for a determination at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Donald Albury 01:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stupid white men" as a source 

message: I've done the disaggregations, and I found that Bush most certainly won FL-2 in 2000. The official CD redistricting statistics from the state of FL published back in 2000 also have Bush winning FL-2. I'm not sure where Gore's win came from, but it is incorrect.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061002100852/http://www.flsenate.gov/data/redistricting_data/current_maps/current_congressional/PUBC0000_stats.pdf Ednamode7 (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Results by CD 

message: This man is a far-left movie maker with a one-sided agenda. 2003:DA:C721:8C00:858A:EB5:739A:2DF9 (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do find a few mentions of Michael Moore at the reliable sources noticeboard, I do not see any about deprecating him as a source, other than a comment that lumped him in with Rush Limbaugh as a political commentator. We are supposed to evaluate each source for its reliability as a source for specific content. We only deprecate a source when it has been repeatedly found to be unreliable. Donald Albury 20:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 9 Michael Moore not a credible source