I don't know what you base Gore winning on. Gore was leading early on and I think some news agencies may have called it for him, but as the day progressed Bush began to take the lead and no official count or recount ever ended with Gore winning. I haven't actually thought about this in years, but as I am revisiting it now I think Gore handled the situation pretty well. I've always been very skeptical of recounts anyway. Why is a recount more accurate than the original count? And if one recount is good, then why not 2 or 10? It has to end somewhere.
I've often advocated for abolishing the Electoral College mainly because Republicans keep winning when more people vote Democrat. But when you think about elections that are really close, the recount issue would likely go from one or two states to the entire US and that would be chaos. Maybe a better scenario would be splitting electoral college votes based on popular vote percentage.
I've often advocated for abolishing the Electoral College mainly because Republicans keep winning when more people vote Democrat. But when you think about elections that are really close, the recount issue would likely go from one or two states to the entire US and that would be chaos. Maybe a better scenario would be splitting electoral college votes based on popular vote percentage.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller
