Introduction
The 2000 presidential elections in America saw a heated contest between George W. Bush, who vied as a republican candidate and Al Gore, who was a democrat candidate. The then incumbent president Bill Clinton was leaving the office after serving for two terms in the office as provided by the country’s constitution. His regime had been criticized for numerous problems that rocked the country at that time (Dershowitz 18).
After the elections, Bush was declared to have narrowly won with two hundred and seventy one electoral votes compared to his opponent Gore who garnered two hundred and sixty six electoral votes. Apart from Florida and Tennessee, Bush was seen to win in all the other southern states with a big margin. Gore closed the gap by managing to sweep most of the Northeastern states except New Hampshire. He also won in most of the upper Midwest, pacific coast states of Washington, California, Hawaii and Oregon. As the counting night progressed, results obtained from most of the small and medium states showed the two candidates being close to one another. Results from Florida were seen as the ones that could determine the winner of the elections.
On tallying the final national results, it was found that Bush had a total of two hundred and forty six electoral votes while Gore had secured two hundred and fifty five electoral votes. For one to be declared the winner, he needed to have a total of two hundred and seventy electoral votes. Results from two small states: New Mexico and Oregon were yet to be received (Dershowitz 24). A lot of attention, however, was being paid on Florida’s results as they carried twenty five electoral votes.
Later, it was declared that Gore had won in the two smaller states. A controversy arose on Florida’s results. It was declared that votes were to be recounted to determine the winner. This made the presidential results take over a month before being made public about who won the elections.
On the day of elections, few minutes before the voting exercise was over, the media declared that Gore had won Florida votes. Their judgment had been made based on the exit polls. As people voted and left the polling station, the media could interview them on their favorite candidate. Most of the interviewed electorates appeared to prefer Gore. This made the media make an early announcement that Gore had carried the day in Florida’s elections.
As the actual vote counting commenced, Bush was seen to lead Gore by more than one hundred thousand votes. Networks, such as Fox News announced that Bush had emerged the winner and thus was the duly elected president. There were still some votes remaining uncounted and that came from counties that were mainly Democratic supporters. As these votes started being counted, Gore was again seen advancing towards Bush and by 4:30 in the morning, their difference was only two thousand votes.
This made Fox News revoke their initial announcement that Bush had won in Florida State. In the background, Gore had privately informed Bush that he accepted the defeat. On hearing the results, he withdrew his concession. This was because he knew that the difference in their vote count would lead to a compulsory recounting and he might emerge the winner. After recounting, Bush had led Gore with three hundred votes which were later boosted by military ballots from overseas to nine hundred (Dershowitz 31).
Despite Bush being declared winner of the election there were numerous flaws in the media coverage, voting system as well as in the judgment made by the Supreme Court. Many people still believe that the election process was not free and fair due to many anomalies that were experienced during the elections. This paper is aimed at discussing some of the flaws experienced in Supreme Court judgment, media coverage and voting system and look for feasible solution to this.
Flaws in election system
As it has been in the past general elections in United States, the 2000 general elections’ system of voting was faced with numerous flaws. These ranged from problems with the electronic voting machines as well as disenfranchising of the minority groups. Flaws were seen in the system of ballot counting. For some time, Experts had complained of the reliability of prescored punch card ballots but little effort was made to avoid them during the elections (Sunstein & Epstein 128).
Election officials knew well that those punch-card systems responsible of making chads often experience problems. The system could at times not fully remove the chads. This led to the counting machine fixing back the chads and counting the vote as an undervote. Despite this, more than five hundred counties in United States used the system to vote in 2000. There were no measures in place to check on votes that had their chads not fully removed.
These votes went through the counting machines, chads fixed back to their holes making them classified as undervotes. Providers of vote counting machines had also agreed that their machines make errors during counting. This escalated the problem in the voting system. A lot of votes were declared undervotes while they were supposed to be good (Correspondents of New York Times para. 2).
The electronic method of voting denied people an opportunity to check whether their votes really went to persons they intended to vote for. It was also hard for them to know whether they had voted successfully. This was because voter’s information was stored electronically. The voting machines; which were expected to be neutral in the exercise contributed to flaws experienced in the exercise. The machines counted minority votes fewer times than they did to non-minority votes. The butterfly ballots used in States such as Florida were confusing to even the literate people. No time had been taken to educate people on their use prior to the polling day.
People found themselves using ballots that were different from ones printed in regional newspaper. This disenfranchised the illiterate people who could not manage to use the ballots. The most affected people were the blacks and the poor. Their areas reported high percentage of undervotes (Correspondents of New York Times para. 4).
American presidential elections are conducted through Electoral College system. The system was used during the controversial presidential election in 2000. The system saw will of the people denied. Despite Gore getting the majority votes, he was not declared the United States president. The system had so many flaws that saw Bush become the president. In the system each voter does not have an equal vote.
The number of votes per person in every state depends on per-capita representation of the person in the Electoral College. This is disadvantageous to presidential candidates who hail from States with large population. A candidate can get popular vote but fail to become the president. This was reflected in 2000 presidential elections where Gore got the majority votes but failed to emerge the winner. According to the system, a voter from state with majority voters is disadvantaged as when it comes to Electoral College, he is accorded equal number of votes as one coming from state with minor votes (Kellner 56).
Despite one being popular in states with majority votes, he or she might fail to win the presidential post if the states happen to be fewer than states with minor votes. As a result, the system has been found to disenfranchise voters making most of them fail to participate in voting exercise as they know that their vote will make no impact in determining the president.
Flaw in media coverage
In every country, media takes a great role in informing the public of the progress in the general elections. It is the role of the media to critically follow the exercise and be impartial in unraveling any flaws found in the process. The media is supposed to furnish the public with accurate information pertaining public importance and present views from both sides competing for presidency so that the public can make informed decision. This was not reflected during the 2000 presidential elections.
Most of the media organizations did not take time to provide the public with enough information regarding policies, principles and tactics of the candidates vying for presidency. Most media concentrated on analyzing the polling results and number of supporters for candidates and failed to analyze candidates’ past history, importance of the elections to the nation and implications of electing specific candidate. This led to the public going to elections with limited information on the candidates they were to elect (Kellner 67)
When Gore was declared the Democrat candidate, the media shifted from concentrating on Bush’s youthful injudicious and focused on Gore’s oppressive personality. Bush being a youth made most of his judgment without considering their implications to the country. Most of his policies were hard to actualize but the media paid no attention on that. Despite Al Gore having good agendas about the country, the media tarnished his name in the public making him appear to be a bad person.
Most people changed their opinion about candidates they were to elect. There were cases where media failed to focus on responses made by Gore in debates. Some news anchors went to an extent of using demeaning names when referring to the presidential candidates. Due to the media focusing more on personality of the candidates, it did not take time to analyze serious issues that affected the country which included environmental pollution, education, social security and government size. Gore; that had productive agendas towards the nation lacked a channel where he could be able to communicate them to the public with the media concentrating on bringing out some of his negative attributes. Bush had promised in his campaign to ensure that there was a reduction in missile production if he happens to become the president (Knight Para. 4).
This was not covered in his proposed budget and the media overlooked the issue. In his debates, media refrained from asking him relevant questions like the methods he could use to control guns in the country as the country had been rocked by a series of school shootings. This biased way of portraying the presidential candidates greatly affected people’s way of voting leading to many choosing candidates they did not intend to.
The media was blamed for airing contradicting news about the presidential elections. Media could use crude methods to determine the winner in a specific state and announce it to the public. As voters frequented the polling stations, different media stations could conduct a brief interview on them after they had voted. When most voters turned out to prefer one candidate, they would declare that candidate the winner in that state. This led to disputes emerging on Florida’s results.
People started to suspect that rigging had been done to make Bush winner of the state. Long before the counting exercise had started, the media had declared that Gore had carried the twenty five electoral votes of Florida (Knight Para. 6). However, when counting began; they realized that Bush was leading with a great margin. Without even waiting for the exercise to end, the media revoked their initial announcement and announced that Bush had won the votes and was the duly elected president of the United States. The media proved to conduct their coverage with minimal considerations.
Pros of media coverage
If properly utilized media can play a vital role during election process. As media people have the right to monitor the voting and counting process, they can be useful in unraveling most of the flaws that might be taking place during the exercise. Coverage of the presidential campaigns and organizing for public debates with the candidate through the media can be very vital in assisting votes make informed decision before voting. They can be able to identify candidate with the best development agendas. Media coverage of election process ensures that there is democracy in voting process where the marginalized people are not discriminated against.
Role of the supreme courts and their partisan politics
The controversial presidential results of Florida led to the Supreme Court intervening to make the judgment. This made many people blame the Supreme Court for not conducting its mandates within the constitutional guidelines. According to Florida law, when there arise a conflict in determining the winner in a closely contested election, the Supreme Court can come in and making the final ruling. The court is supposed to do its ruling based on people’s will. When the court ordered a hand recount of votes from some counties in Florida, it was found that Bush was leading Gore with a hundred and fifty four votes (Vitug, Marites Danguilan para. 4).
The court realized that a lot of legal votes were contained in undervotes. It decided to do all that is required by law to ensure that all legal votes were counted. The court had also been ordered by United States Supreme Court to ensure that it follows all provisions within the law to ensure that counting exercise was transparent. Despite it asserting to conduct all its duties according to the law, the Florida Supreme court was seen to make its rulings against Gore’s faction. The court declined to allow a recount of Miami-Dade votes as Gore had requested. It also blocked a revote petition brought up by residents of Palm Beach. They had argued that the butterfly voting system used in the county was against the State law. This system was seen to cost Gore a lot of votes in the county (Lefebvre para. 5).
The Florida Supreme Court issued a short period for recounting of all the undervotes. The process continued with both candidates recording some additional votes. However, the exercise was stopped by five justices from the United States Supreme Court. This was after Bush and his legal team requested for termination of the exercise. This clearly showed disrespect to the Court. The role of the court is to make rulings on matters to do with elections without being inclined to any candidate. Despite the recounting process proving that there were numerous legal votes in the undervotes, the US Supreme Court failed to honor the exercise.
Their decision was found to be biased in favor of Bush (Miconi para. 2). To justify their ruling, the justices claimed that the exercise would lead to an irreparable damage to Bush by revoking his legal election as the president. They claimed that the move taken by Florida Supreme Court violated protections rights as stipulated in United States constitution. The constitution requires that people in parallel conditions be treated equally by the law.
The actions taken by the Supreme Court were fraudulent, unjustifiable and illegal. Bush’s argument lacked concrete evidence to stop recounting exercise. For one to contest the exercise, he or she is required to have an evidence of injury implicated on him or her by the court’s decision or show clearly that the decision will have severe effects. Bush’s allegations were mere assumptions and lacked evidence. The major issue that needed to be focused on to determine the case was whether recounting exercise would have detrimental effects on Florida’s electorates. Bush being a Texas electorate would have not been affected by the process. In addition, there were evidence showing that Bush as the presidential candidate would have suffered no loss in the recounting process (Neas para. 7).
Solution to elections problems
To make sure that similar problems do not reoccur in other election exercises, there is great need for reforms to be effected in the elections system. Electoral College for many years has been blamed for not yielding to the will of the people. It has seen candidate with popular votes fail to become the country’s president. There is need for the system to ensure that every States receive proportionate electors.
This would eliminate cases where a candidate receives majority of votes. This is because the system would accommodate for more than two presidential candidates. The first two candidates with majority votes can then go for a second election to determine the winner. In states with odd number of electors, the extra elector would be assigned to presidential candidate who had scooped popular vote. With these changes effected in the Electoral College system, it would be possible for the system to reflect the will of the people.
This would help in increasing voter turnout in areas where voters feel that their votes make no difference in determining the president that is elected. Minority candidates would also be in a position to garner some Electoral College votes in spite of them being at a lower rate than the popular vote (Posner 32). The reforms would ensure that election process focuses more on Principles, values and agendas presented by presidential candidates rather than personality as it is seen in the current process.
Works Cited
Correspondents of New York Times. 36 Days: The Complete Chronicle of the 2000 Presidential Election Crisis. New York: Hentry Holt & Co., 2001.
Dershowitz, Alan. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Kellner, Douglas. Grand Theft 2000: media Spectacle & Stolen Election. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2001.
Knight, Dan. Reforming the Electoral College: Part 2 in a series on election reform. 2000. Web.
Lefebvre, Alex. US voting machines: Will 2004 elections be electronically rigged?. Web.
Miconi, Thomas. The United States election system is designed to exclude ideas. 2000. Web.
Neas, Ralph. Fundamental Flaws Put Our Voting System at Risk. 2004. Web.
Posner, Richard. Breaking The Deadlock: The 2000 Election, The Constitution, And The Courts. New York: Princeton, 2001.
Sunstein, Cass & Epstein, Richard. The Vote: Bush, Gore & The Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Vitug, Marites Danguilan. SC justice in partisan politics? 2009. Web.