Question: What is different in comparison between the 1800 electoral system and the system in place in 2004?

Answer: under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president

One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for vice president (John Edwards's name was spelled correctly on all ballots for vice president). <hl> This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as it violated Electoral College rules). <hl>

One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for vice president (John Edwards's name was spelled correctly on all ballots for vice president). This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but <hl> under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president <hl> (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as it violated Electoral College rules).

question: What is different in comparison between the 1800 electoral system and the system in place in 2004?, context: One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for vice president (John Edwards's name was spelled correctly on all ballots for vice president). This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as it violated Electoral College rules).


Question: In the 1800 election, why did Thomas Jefferson get the second vote?

Answer: it violated Electoral College rules

One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for vice president (John Edwards's name was spelled correctly on all ballots for vice president). <hl> This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as it violated Electoral College rules ) <hl> .

One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for vice president (John Edwards's name was spelled correctly on all ballots for vice president). This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as <hl> it violated Electoral College rules <hl>).

This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as <hl> it violated Electoral College rules <hl> )

question: In the 1800 election, why did Thomas Jefferson get the second vote?, context: One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for vice president (John Edwards's name was spelled correctly on all ballots for vice president). This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast a vote for the same person to be both president and vice president; another faithless elector in the 1800 election had voted twice for Aaron Burr, but under that electoral system only votes for the president's position were cast, with the runner-up in the Electoral College becoming vice president (and the second vote for Burr was discounted and re-assigned to Thomas Jefferson in any event, as it violated Electoral College rules).


Question: Why was there tension the day after the election?

Answer: It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. <hl> It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner . <hl> Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. <hl> It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner <hl>. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

<hl> It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner <hl> .

question: Why was there tension the day after the election?, context: The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.


Question: Despite an apparent lead by Bush early on, what was thought to be a concern?

Answer: provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. <hl> Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000 . <hl> Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to <hl> provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000 <hl>. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to <hl> provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000 <hl> .

question: Despite an apparent lead by Bush early on, what was thought to be a concern?, context: The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.


Question: How would it be determined who would win, in the event of an electoral tie?

Answer: The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. <hl> The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population . <hl> Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. <hl> The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population <hl>. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

<hl> The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population <hl> .

question: How would it be determined who would win, in the event of an electoral tie?, context: The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.


Question: Which state became the most important to secure Bush's presidential election?

Answer: the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. <hl> Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio , regardless of the final totals elsewhere. <hl> In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, <hl> the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio <hl>, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.

Therefore, <hl> the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio <hl> , regardless of the final totals elsewhere.

question: Which state became the most important to secure Bush's presidential election?, context: The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.


Question: Who did Bush lose the popular vote to in the 2000 election for presidency?

Answer: Al Gore

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. <hl> Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes. <hl>

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to <hl> Al Gore <hl> by over 500,000 votes.

question: Who did Bush lose the popular vote to in the 2000 election for presidency?, context: The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes.


Question: Was there any debate about the voting process in Ohio?

Answer: a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes

<hl> At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes . <hl> Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, <hl> a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes <hl>. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, <hl> a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes <hl> .

question: Was there any debate about the voting process in Ohio?, context: At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."


Question: What was the decision regarding the motion to re-count the votes, after each House finalized their debates?

Answer: During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. <hl> During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote . <hl> Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. <hl> During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote <hl>. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

<hl> During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote <hl> .

question: What was the decision regarding the motion to re-count the votes, after each House finalized their debates?, context: At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."


Question: Who was the lone supporter of the motion, from the Senate?

Answer: Senator Boxer

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. <hl> In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer , with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. <hl> During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, <hl> Senator Boxer <hl>, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, <hl> Senator Boxer <hl> , with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting.

question: Who was the lone supporter of the motion, from the Senate?, context: At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."


Question: Why did Senator Boxer say she voted the way she did?

Answer: Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. <hl> Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities." <hl>

question: Why did Senator Boxer say she voted the way she did?, context: At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."


Question: How many people from the House of Representatives did not vote?

Answer: Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. <hl> Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats . <hl> Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. <hl> Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats <hl>. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

<hl> Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats <hl> .

question: How many people from the House of Representatives did not vote?, context: At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."


Question: What did Kerry say affected the ability to know if the results of the Ohio vote was unbiased?

Answer: "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters."

<hl> Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... <hl> We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that <hl> "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." <hl> In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

question: What did Kerry say affected the ability to know if the results of the Ohio vote was unbiased?, context: Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."


Question: Which Democratic official supported Kerry's theory about the Ohio votes?

Answer: Howard Dean

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." <hl> In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... <hl> We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman <hl> Howard Dean <hl> said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

question: Which Democratic official supported Kerry's theory about the Ohio votes?, context: Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."


Question: What was said about the devices used to collect the votes, in Ohio?

Answer: the machines were not reliable

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... <hl> We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable . <hl> It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and <hl> the machines were not reliable <hl>. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and <hl> the machines were not reliable <hl> .

question: What was said about the devices used to collect the votes, in Ohio?, context: Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."


Question: Who was targeted for defrauding the electoral process, in Ohio?

Answer: the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. <hl> It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections . <hl> That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that <hl> the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections <hl>. That's what we suspect has happened."

It should not be a surprise that <hl> the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections <hl> .

question: Who was targeted for defrauding the electoral process, in Ohio?, context: Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."


Question: Who was called in to watch over the presidential election in 2004?

Answer: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004

<hl> At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004 . <hl> It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, <hl> the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004 <hl>. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, <hl> the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004 <hl> .

question: Who was called in to watch over the presidential election in 2004?, context: At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."


Question: Was this the only occasion the OSCE was invited to preside over a presidential election?

Answer: It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past.

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. <hl> It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. <hl> The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. <hl> It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. <hl> In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

question: Was this the only occasion the OSCE was invited to preside over a presidential election?, context: At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."


Question: What were the findings of the OSCE team?

Answer: mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. <hl> The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document . <hl> They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States <hl> mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document <hl>. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States <hl> mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document <hl> .

question: What were the findings of the OSCE team?, context: At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."


Question: What type of values did the OSCE determine were adhered to during the election process?

Answer: long-standing democratic tradition

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. <hl> They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition , including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. <hl> There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a <hl> long-standing democratic tradition <hl>, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

They were conducted in an environment that reflects a <hl> long-standing democratic tradition <hl> , including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process.

question: What type of values did the OSCE determine were adhered to during the election process?, context: At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."


Question: What finance act affected the 2004 election?

Answer: the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

<hl> The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). <hl> Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by <hl> the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 <hl> (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

question: What finance act affected the 2004 election?, context: The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)


Question: Where did the moniker McCain-Feingold Bill come from?

Answer: its sponsors in the United States Senate

<hl> The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate ). <hl> Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for <hl> its sponsors in the United States Senate <hl>). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for <hl> its sponsors in the United States Senate <hl> ).

question: Where did the moniker McCain-Feingold Bill come from?, context: The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)


Question: How did the 527 groups come up with their title?

Answer: Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. <hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code , these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. <hl> Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. <hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code <hl>, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

<hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code <hl> , these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns.

question: How did the 527 groups come up with their title?, context: The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)


Question: What stipulation enabled the 527 groups to campaign for funds?

Answer: as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. <hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns . <hl> Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes <hl> as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns <hl>. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes <hl> as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns <hl> .

question: What stipulation enabled the 527 groups to campaign for funds?, context: The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)


Question: What is one of the named 527 groups from the 2004 election?

Answer: MoveOn.org

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. <hl> Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org , the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. <hl> Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, <hl> MoveOn.org <hl>, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, <hl> MoveOn.org <hl> , the Media Fund, and America Coming Together.

question: What is one of the named 527 groups from the 2004 election?, context: The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)


Question: How were viewers able to determine who endorsed political campaign ads, they saw in advertisements??

Answer: required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement

<hl> To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement . <hl> Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were <hl> required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement <hl>. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were <hl> required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement <hl> .

question: How were viewers able to determine who endorsed political campaign ads, they saw in advertisements??, context: To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.


Question: What was disallowed in advertising during the two months prior to the general election?

Answer: 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." <hl> Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 ( 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name . <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (<hl> 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name <hl>. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 ( <hl> 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name <hl> .

question: What was disallowed in advertising during the two months prior to the general election?, context: To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.


Question: Official advertisements generally contained what phrase?

Answer: "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message."

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. <hl> Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, <hl> "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." <hl> Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

question: Official advertisements generally contained what phrase?, context: To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.


Question: Independent advertisements generally contained what phrase?

Answer: "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement"

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." <hl> Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" , and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, <hl> "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" <hl>, and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, <hl> "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" <hl> , and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name.

question: Independent advertisements generally contained what phrase?, context: To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.


Question: What was the tag line requirement before?

Answer: Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen. <hl>

question: What was the tag line requirement before?, context: To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.


Question: What action suggested by a state, would have affecting the outcome of the electoral votes?

Answer: ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36

<hl> A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36 , would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. <hl> Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

A <hl> ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36 <hl>, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

A <hl> ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36 <hl> , would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes.

question: What action suggested by a state, would have affecting the outcome of the electoral votes?, context: A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.