A HISTORICAL EVENT IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY: THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Election Night, Florida 11/07/00: The electoral votes are too close to call after all other states are decided except Florida, which now holds the balance of votes needed. An errant call by all major news networks at 8:00 pm projects Al Gore the winner of Florida. At 10:30 pm, they pull the call back. At 2:00 am they call the state for George W. Bush. Al Gore concedes. A recount in Florida will decide the closest presidential election in modern history, capping an extraordinary night in which Texas Gov. George W. Bush appeared to win the race, only to receive a 4 a.m. ET phone call from Vice President Al Gore withdrawing his concession and extending the contest after the media once again pulls their call back. The night ends in a deadlock.

This is the wildest thing that has ever happened in United States electoral and constitutional history. As the votes were counted Tuesday night 11/7/00, the news media projected that the state of Florida would be won by Al Gore at 7:30 pm. Then they took that call back. Early Wednesday morning around 2:30, they projected George W. Bush would win the state. Then they took that call back. Then Al Gore conceded. Then Al Gore retracted his concession.

A mandatory vote recount in Florida was triggered by the closeness of the election. Once completed, it still showed Bush as the winner. However, Al Gore chose to make numerous legal issues out of election problems in court. His supporters across the country were also alleging all kinds of election improprieties. George W. Bush, who tried to take the high road, finally had to file suit in the U.S. Supreme Court after the Florida State Supreme Court unilaterally stepped in and delayed the certification of the votes from 11/14/00 to 11/26/00 to allow for hand recounts of the votes in three counties chosen by Al Gore.

Election Protest, Florida 11/26/00: George W. Bush Wins Election 2000! This historical event is marked by State Secretary Katherine Harris' vote certification, which was delayed five days by the State Supreme Court so hand recounts could be conducted in Broward County. Vice President Al Gore will contest the election

The U.S. Supreme court would eventually overturn the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court which delayed the certification of the Florida vote. But before that could happen, Broward county completed a hand count which gave Al Gore over 500 more votes. Palm Beach County couldn't complete their count in time. Miami-Dade decided during the count to stop. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified Bush the Sunshine State winner by 537 votes on 12/26/00.

Election Contest, Florida 12/04/00: Hand Count Rejected By Leon County Circuit Court. George W. Bush is still the winner as Leon County Circuit Judge N. Sanders Sauls rejects Al Gore's request to order a hand recount of disputed presidential ballots. Also today, a historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which set aside the original State Supreme Court ruling that delayed the vote cerification, allowing Al Gore to benefit from recounts.

Even though the Florida Supreme Court ruled to extend the protest period (prior to vote certification), Al Gore didn't get the votes he needed to overcome Bush's lead. So he pressed on during the contest phase (after the vote certification). Gore kept the election outcome unclear after the certification by refusing to concede the race to George W. Bush and engaging in ongoing litigation. Gore supporters rallied behind the mantra of "count all the votes." The Leon County Circuit Court ruling to not do a handcount dealt a blow to the legal wrangling of the Gore team.

Election Contest, Florida 12/08/00: Florida State Supreme Court Overules Leon Circuit Court in 5-4 Decison. Gore Supporters Erupt in Cheers as Court Spokesperson Announces Decision. Chief Justice Wells dissented in the decision saying that they would again be shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Florida Supreme Court gave Al Gore temporary hope when they ordered hand counts of all the votes that had been rejected twice by the machine counts in every Florida county. The earlier ruling to extend the certification deadline during the protest period, and this ruling during the contest period caused many to accuse the Florida State Supreme Court of violating the separation of powers by usurping the legislative and executive branches of government. These decisions were seen as going beyond the Court's constitutional role of interpreter. They were accused of changing rather than interpreting existing (although sometimes unclear) Florida State election law.

Election Contest, Florida 12/09/00: Another historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which stops the Florida State Supreme Court ruling of 12/08/00 ordering hand recounts of all undervotes in the entire state. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on 12/11/00.

Election Contest, Washington 12/13/00: U.S. Supreme Court Rules Hand Count Unconstitutional Without Proper Standards. The U.S. Supreme Court ended the chaos by announcing at 11 pm 12/12/00 by a 5 to 4 decision that the stay on hand counts would stand. There was no more time left to count votes.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled 5-4 to continue the stay on hand counts until the uniform standards could be set. This, too, was a moot issue. But, it left the State of Florida with homework because these issues do need to be resolved for future elections. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens strongly dissented by stating the decision would cause Americans to not respect state courts. If the state of Florida wasn't able to choose the correct electors by 12/12/00, they would have risked sending electors that could be contested by the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Constitution requires electors to either be chosen by or have the process of their selection determined by state legislatures. The Florida House of Representatives used this provision to vote for a slate of Bush electors, but the State Senate dropped their vote because Al Gore conceded when he realized that time had run out.

Concession, Washington 12/14/00: Al Gore Concedes. Al Gore gives an eloquent concession speech which marks the end of the presidential deadlock.

From election day til 12/13/00, over 56 court cases were fought. But once the time had run out, Al Gore finally conceded in a brilliant and eloquent concession speech. Had he given that same speech the day after the votes were certified, he could have gone down in history as a great patriot. He still saved some face with the speech because it saved him from being remembered as a sore loser.

HISTORY WILL GIVE GORE FAIR AND SOMETIMES TOUGH REVIEWS, BUT WILL NOT BRAND HIM AS UNPATRIOTIC

Many originally contrasted Gore's disruptive and seemingly unpresidential efforts to contest and protest the 2000 election to the actions of Richard Nixon, whose loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960 was questioned by the candidate because of voter fraud in Illinois. Nixon gracefully conceded while keeping post election protests low keyed as to not undermine the new president. But after Gore's " Immaculate Concession" speech, this criticism faded. The speech allowed many to cut Gore some slack since the race was such a heartbreaker.

As time passes and history judges candidate Gore, he more than likely will be remembered as a good man of strong conviction who was a formidable candidate that lost a heartbreaker. Thorns in the history will come from discussions of the "would have, should have" scenarios where Gore could have either been more gracious by conceding earlier or could have been more successful in using different legal tactics to get the votes re-counted again.

While some will say Gore's "I will fight for you" drive and determination to win the election was a positive quality, others will call him an overly ambitious man who wouldn't accept defeat graciously. Many, including Gore himself, would blame former President Bill Clinton's sex scandal for the election loss. Being vice president in what many saw as a scandal laden Clinton administration may in fact have been the one variable which could have tetered this close election just enough the other way.

Candidate George W. Bush admitted that beating an incumbent during peace and prosperity would be difficult. He focused on Gore's link to Clinton administration shortcomings and scandals as a staple of his campaign. On the other side of the coin however, it could be argued that George W. Bush would have won by a larger margin had the issue of a DUI from 26 years prior hadn't been brought up.

It would not be until after Gore conceded the election that a majority of Americans would come to accept the impossibility of arriving at a conclusive result from the subjective evaluations that would be required in re-counting ballots that were improperly punched and rejected by the machine counts.

Informal recounts of the votes questioned by Gore conducted after George W. Bush was inaugurated resulted in no conclusive evidence that the outcome of the election would have been changed. In fact, some counts gave Bush a few more votes.

______________________________________________________________________

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, NOT ABOLISHED

The popular vote can be better reflected without the need of a Constitutional amendment.

The electoral college is a sound and safe institution established by the framers of the U.S. Constitution for specific reasons, one of which was their concern with problems that could arise out of popular voting for president. Today, we enjoy, cherish and have enshrined our reliance on popular vote as a basic tenet of democracy. There is no need to shy away from that. Nor should the existence of the electoral college be seen as a threat to that. The electoral college is just a few adjustments short of being totally in line with democratic ideals.

The electoral college should be chosen within each state by a statewide election for 2 electors at large (so as to reflect the number of senators in each state). Each congressional district within a state would then choose an elector by the popular vote of those living within that district (so as to reflect the number of House of Representatives congressmen in each state).

The "winner take all" scenario of the current electoral college process offsets the benefits of the automatic 2 votes for each small state. In a large state, regardless of how close the popular vote is, all of their numerous electoral votes are cast for one candidate. The abolishment of the electoral college would only result in keeping that heavy weight of votes with the larger states.

Reforming the electoral college as suggested would actually make it more true to our democratic ideals. The selection of electors by congressional district would more closely mirror the popular vote in the electoral college. At the same time, it would continue to protect small states from being subject unfairly to the will of larger states because each state would have 2 electors at large regardless of size.

There would actually be an improvement in the system as a bi-product of this suggestion. In New York, for example, Democratic city voters wouldn't dominate rural and suburban Republican voters. Even if the Democratic candidate secured more electoral votes and won the state, the districts that voted Republican would not need to feel as if their votes didn't count (as is the case now). In small states like Iowa, there would be "natural" winner take all or 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 split scenarios because their congressional districts would more than likely reflect the state's popular vote. They'd be in essence pooling their small number of electors with the 2 electors at large. This would be an improvement because it not only preserves the say of small states, but would also give minority congressional districts within larger states a fair stake in a presidential election.

Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College need a Constitutional amendment. The tweaks suggested by this writer could be passed by state legislatures throughout the country without the need of Constitutional amendment or changes to federal law. States could be encouraged to pass a law allowing electors to be chosen by popular vote in each congressional district. The electors would still be expected to vote for the candidate they slated themself for.

Many call the Electoral College antiquated. This writer strongly begs to differ. In fact, this writer would rather go back to the founding fathers' original reason for creating it: fear of popular ignorance or mistake. Unlike popular opinion on both the Republican and Democratic side, this writer doesn't agree with the premise that the electoral college doesn't apply to our modern political system.

The idea of the masses not being able to correctly pick a president should not be dismissed simply because they are able to do so 98% of the time. There should still be concern, albeit unlikely, that a candidate could be popularly elected under false pretenses. A mathematical tie is unlikely, but that happened. So what's to say that over the next thousand years a popularly elected president can't have (prior to the Electoral College vote, but after the popular vote) a current criminal issue or health problem that was deliberately hidden from the public during the campaign?

The electoral college is the safeguard already Constitutionally established by the founding fathers which would allow the leeway to correct this problem at the last minute. It would be a radical idea to completely abolish the electoral college.

The current issue is a prime example of the founding fathers' wisdom and vision when establishing the electoral college. They couldn't possibly foresee problems with modern machinery. But they did foresee problems with popular election of the president. It's quite obvious that if it's a mathematical tie in the popular vote that we need a back up plan for when the popular vote is so evenly split on the candidates.

There is another advantage to this reform. If the 2000 presidential election occurred under the suggested scenario, only 3 of the 25 electoral votes at stake in Florida would be contested (the 2 at large, and the one for the congressional district that includes Broward County). This would limit the scope of protests and contests to the congressional district or districts in question.

ITS THE YEAR 2000 FOR GOD'S SAKE: UPGRADE THE VOTING EQUIPMENT

The result of a lesson well learned should cause us to wake up and smell the coffee that we're brewing in antiquated machinery.

Each state should take the responsibility of upgrading their equipment and setting uniform standards for presidential elections. We are in the year 2000 after all. Individualized computer voting through the use of an ATM-like machine with touch voting or keypad oriented balloting is not too much to ask for in an era where people are more capable of making complex banking transactions than they are at punching out stupid computer cards. The results could be stored on a disk at each polling place, and then be uploaded to the state's election commission for counting.