Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fact Check: Al Gore did NOT win a majority of the popular vote in 2000

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:08 AM
Original message
Fact Check: Al Gore did NOT win a majority of the popular vote in 2000
I just had to cringe when I heard that oh-so-annoying moderator of the Dean-Nader debate casually remark that Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote in the last presidential election.

Call me old fashioned, but when I grew up, I was taught that the word "majority" means greater than 50%. And the last time I checked, 48.38% (Gore's share of the popular vote: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm ) was still less than 50%.

What Gore received was a PLURALITY of the popular vote. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996. Hell, I'd gladly settle for a plurality of the popular vote in 2004, provided Kerry gets a majority of the electoral vote, which is what really matters.

So for those of you who continue to talk about the 2000 election, please consider using the word plurality when discussing Gore's share of the popular vote. And if you MUST use the word majority, please make it clear that you are talking about Gore's share of the major party vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gmoney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Picky picky...
Say "plurality" to the average person and you'll get a blank stare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cidliz2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ditto
especially to dittoheads!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. "more votes than Bush" is correct and to the point
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flutter by Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, but
from the same source I see that Bush only got 47.87%. Call it what you will, those fundie-cons would have to look 'plurality' up in the dictionary. If they could spell it, that is. I'd bet they think it's a pickup truck with extra wheels!

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Plurality is librul for "Sore Loserman"
..and oh yeah, get over it. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TSIAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. Understood
That's the term I try to use. Of course, Gore should have received the MAJORITY of electoral votes. That's all that matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Its the "winner take all" electoral system that is undemocratic
Edited on Sun Jul-11-04 01:55 AM by Mika
If there were proportional electoral representation in all states.. Gore would be in the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Actually, I think it depends
I believe Gore would have won if electoral votes were allocated among the states based on the number of seats the state had in the U.S. House of Representatives. The way things work now, the number of electoral votes is based on the number of the seats in the House PLUS the two senate seats, which worked to the benefit of Bush because of all the sparsely populated Republican states in the West.

However, if the electoral votes were allocated to each candidate based on the number of congressional districts they carried, I'm not sure which candidate would have won. I believes the results would have been nearly as close as the actual outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. BY congressionsal districts, Bush would've won.
I'd post this if I could find it, but I do remember reading that Bush would've won by a more comfortable margin if districts were in play. Likewise, b/c of Republican-dominated gerrymandering, Bush would win even more electoral votes this time around if he won by the same margins he did in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. You Are Correct
The Simian In Chief won more congressional districts than Gore....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LimpingLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. like 234-191 going by memory
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. But if electoral votes were apportioned to states based on the House,
that is, if it was winner-take-all, but there were no two Senate votes for each state, Gore would have won with a reasonable margin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. IF they counted the votes he would be in
I think that is the single most significant point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaoar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-11-04 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
13. Some for instances...
If electoral votes had been won by congressional district, Gore would have won two of Georgia's votes, but Bush would have won three of Maryland's and a whopping 27 of California's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC