All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

2000 Elections

ziggy on 2002-10-14T21:16:04

The debacle around the 2000 US Presidential Election refuses to die. jwz has this synopsis:

  • Bush won 47% of the popular vote.
  • There was a 51% voter turnout.
  • That means 76% of eligible voters did not support Bush.
  • And a mere 72% of eligible voters did not support Gore.
Of the 49% of eligible voters that didn't vote for anyone, how many chose:
  • none of the above
  • I don't care
  • I'm evading Jury Duty
  • I couldn't make it to the polls on that day

So?

petdance on 2002-10-15T01:35:39

That means 76% of eligible voters did not support Bush.

So what's the conclusion that you're drawing from these assertions?

Re:So?

ziggy on 2002-10-15T02:12:59

So what's the conclusion that you're drawing from these assertions?
First, that jwz believes that the vast majority of the US Population disapproves of Bush's policies. This conclusion may be correct, but the shell game that leads to damned lie (er, statistic) that 76% do not support Bush today is quite bogus. (Realistically, 53% is a more believable upper bound; disapproval of Bush was likely comparable among both voters and non-voters.)

Second, erroneous statistics notwithstanding, the 2000 Presidential Elections are still a source for conversation and debate. The issue has not died two years later, and will probably continue for another two years (and cast a sinister light on any anti-establishment policy, especially the contentious ones).

Re:So?

pudge on 2002-10-16T03:57:53

Well, let's start with the fact that there is no such thing as a popular vote for President of the United States of America. We vote for electors within only the particular state. This fact means several things, but all of them essentially mean that it is not possible to use the votes of the individual states as a reliable guage of support for one candidate or another.

For example, many voters in Massachusetts -- both Republican and Democrat -- might not vote simply because it is a foregone conclusion that Gore was going to win the state's slate of electors. Or they may vote for a third party candidate, knowing their vote for Bush or Gore is meaningless (I did this in the 1996 election, when I voted for Browne).

So not only is it false to say that there was a popular vote, but the actual percentage of voters who selected Bush is staistically (as well as actually) meaningless in relation to approval. As well, the percentage of voters has no significance in this either, for the same reason (as well as many others).

The bottom line is that jwz's post is entirely false, except for the voter turnout, which has no significance to his other points.