What did the controversies surrounding the2000 presdential election say about the

  • Thread starter Thread starter أسماء
  • Start date Start date
أ

أسماء

Guest
health of American Democracy What did the controversies surrounding the 2000 presidential election-especially the contested results in Florida and the U.S Supreme Court's intervention- say about the health of American Democracy?
I had to shorten the question, but this is the real question.
 
I beleive it was blown out of proportion and shouldnt have been. I live in the area of Florida that won the election for Bush. The news media was projecting Gore as the winner before all the polls closed. West of Talahassee is in the central time zone and three counties in paticular (Santa Rosa,Okaloosa,Walton) are very conservative. As far as the Supreme court getting involved I have a problem with 12 Judges who are appointed for life making decisions that affect the whole country.
 
Unhealthy. We do not live in a democracy because the majority vote did not win. It's kinda funny how the United States travels elsewhere and tries to establish "democracies" when they cannot hold fair elections in the motherland. I often wonder about the people who collect the ballets and turn people away from voting locations. These people who decide that soldiers' votes do not count...do they have a soul?
 
I assume this is for a school assignment.

While I personally did not like the outcome, the controversy showed that our democracy was strong. Despite anger and bitterness, the country continued to function, and a president who was validated by the Electoral College took office and assumed the reigns of executive power. There was no military coup, no rioting, and only limited numbers of protests. The dissident party, in this case the Democrats, while mighty angry, went back to work in the Congress and elsewhere to continue in the governance and operation of our nation.

It was not the president selected by the popular vote, and it required a controversial decision by the Supreme Court to determine how to handle the Florida mess, but the process operated in accord with the US Constitution, a document written well over 200 years previously.

How many other countries could make sure a boast?

In response to the previous two responses, the Constitution does not give the Presidency to the candidate who wins the most votes from the citizens, but to the candidate who wins the most votes in the Electoral College. I personally believe that this should change, but for now it's the law of the land and has been so since 1789. And as for the power of the Supreme Court justices, again the system worked the way that the Founding Fathers intended, with the Supreme Court executing the most senior judicial power in the country.
 
Back
Top