date: 3/9/15 activity: 2000 election warm up: how did bill clinton’s impeachment impact the 2000...

Date: 3/9/15

Activity: 2000 Election

Warm Up: How did Bill Clinton’s Impeachment impact the 2000 election?

Homework: *Study Guide due

Tomorrow 3/10

*UNIT TEST Wednesday 3/11

*Foreign Policy Vocab due Thursday

Welcome to Contemporary U.S. and World HistoryWelcome to Contemporary U.S. and World History

Pg Assignment Date

15Conservative Tide

Continues2/26

16 Bush PPT Notes 2/26

17 Clinton’s Presidency 2/26

18 Clinton’s Impeachment 2/26

19 Election 2000 PPT Notes 3/2

20Unit 6 (Domestic) Study

Guide3/2

21 Foreign Policy Vocab 3/9

THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

QUESTION TO KEEP IN MIND:

SHOULD THE U.S. DO AWAY WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND GO TO A POPULAR VOTE IN SELECTING PRESIDENTS?

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE• ARTICLE II OF THE US CONSTITUTION:

– THE PEOPLE VOTE FOR “ELECTORS,” PEOPLE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT THEIR STATE, ON ELECTION DAY

– # OF ELECTORS DETERMINED BY THE # OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS (2) FOR EACH STATE

– EXAMPLE: PA GETS 20 ELECTORAL VOTES (2 SENATORS + 18 REPRESENTATIVES)

– ELECTORS PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR SPECIFIC CANDIDATES

– THE PRESIDENT IS NOT CHOSEN BY POPULAR VOTE

• WINNER TAKES ALL:– CANDIDATES WHO WIN A MAJORITY OF ELECTORS IN

EACH STATE (50% + 1 VOTE) WIN THAT ENTIRE STATES’ ELECTORAL VOTES (EXCEPT MAINE & NEBRASKA)

ELECTORS NEEDED TO WIN

• SENATORS (50 X 2) 100• REPRESENTATIVES 435• WASH. D.C. 3

___538

538 / 2 = 269

270 ELECTORAL VOTES NEEDED TO WIN

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

ARGUMENTS FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE• REQUIRES WIDESPREAD POPULAR SUPPORT TO

WIN (AVOIDS SECTIONALISM):– CANNOT WIN BASED ON HEAVY CONCENTRATION OF

VOTES IN A FEW AREAS– PREVENTS FOCUS ON LARGE CITIES AT THE EXPENSE

OF RURAL AREAS• MAINTAINS FEDERAL CHARACTER OF U.S.:

– ELECTIONS COME DOWN TO DECISIONS OF EACH STATE– PREVENTS A MASSIVE CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT

• ENHANCES STATUS OF MINORITY GROUPS:– MINORITIES CAN PROVIDE THE CRITICAL VOTES NEEDED

FOR A CANDIDATE TO WIN– ENCOURAGES CANDIDATES TO COURT A WIDE VARIETY

OF MINORITIES AND SPECIAL INTERESTS• ENCOURAGES STABILITY THROUGH THE TWO-

PARTY SYSTEM:– DIFFICULT FOR THIRD PARTIES TO WIN– PREVENTS PRESIDENCY FROM CONTROL BY REGIONAL

MINORITIES WITHOUT BROADBASE NATIONAL SUPPORT

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ELECTORAL COLLEGE

• PROPORTIONALLY MORE INFLUENCE FOR SMALLER POPULATION STATES:– DUE TO EVERY STATE HAVING 2 SENATORS– TENDS TO FAVOR REPUBLICANS WHO HISTORICALLY DO BETTER IN

LESS POPULOUS STATES• CAUSES TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO BE PAID TO KEY “SWING

STATES”:– CAUSES CANDIDATES TO CONCENTRATE ON STATES WITHOUT A

CLEAR FAVORITE– EXAMPLES: PENNSYLVANIA & FLORIDA

• A CANDIDATE CAN WIN MORE POPULAR VOTES BUT STILL LOSE THE ELECTION:– THIS HAS HAPPENED FOUR TIMES IN U.S. HISTORY (1824, 1876, 1888,

2000)– CANDIDATE CAN WIN BY SMALL MARGIN IN A FEW OF THE LARGEST

STATES OVER A CANDIDATE WHO WINS BY LARGE MARGINS IN THE REST OF THE STATES

• DISADVANTAGE FOR THIRD PARTIES:– RARELY WILL BE ABLE TO GET A MAJORITY IN A STATE TO GET

ELECTORAL VOTES

SWING STATE ATTENTION GIVEN BY KERRY AND BUSH IN 2004

POPULAR VS. ELECTORAL VOTES

THE CANDIDATES• AL GORE:

– FORMER VICE PRESIDENT

– DEMOCRAT• PRO CHOICE• GAY RIGHTS• SEPARATION OF

CHURCH AND STATE

– CAMPAIGN FOCUSED ON HIS 8 YEAR EXPERIENCE AS VP, BUT DOWNPLAYED HIS CONNECTION TO CLINTON (LEWINSKY SCANDAL)

THE CANDIDATES

• GEORGE W. BUSH:– SON OF FORMER

PRESIDENT BUSH– GOVERNOR OF

TEXAS– REPUBLICAN

• SAID HE WOULD RESTORE HONOR AND DIGNITY TO THE WHITE HOUSE

• “COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE”

• OPENLY RELIGIOUS

THE CANDIDATES• RALPH NADER:

– GREEN PARTY– STRONGEST 3RD

PARTY CANDIDATE-WON 2.74% OF THE POPULAR VOTE

– ISSUES/VALUES:• CONSUMER

ADVOCACY• THE ENVIRONMENT• REJECTED BOTH THE

DEMS AND THE REPS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF CORPORATE INTERESTS, AND NOT THOSE OF THE PEOPLE

2000 THE ELECTION RESULTS

• ON ELECTION NIGHT (NOV.7) IT BECAME CLEAR THE ELECTION WAS GOING TO BE UNUSUALLY CLOSE

• BUSH TOOK THE SOUTHERN STATES, THE RURAL MIDWEST AND THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES

• GORE TOOK MOST OF THE NORTHEAST, THE UPPER MIDWEST AND THE PACIFIC COAST STATES

• BUSH HAD CLEARLY WON A TOTAL OF 246 ELECTORAL VOTES, WHILE GORE HAD CLEARLY WON 255 VOTES (270 VOTES WERE NEEDED TO WIN)

• IT BECAME CLEAR THAT FLORIDA’S 25 ELECTORAL VOTES WOULD DECIDE THE ELECTION

THE ELECTION RESULTS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

THE POPULAR VOTE

FLORIDA RECOUNT? (1)

• AT APPROXIMATELY 7:50 P.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME, 10 MINUTES BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED IN THE LARGELY REPUBLICAN FLORIDA PANHANDLE, SOME TELEVISION NEWS NETWORKS DECLARED THAT GORE HAD CARRIED FLORIDA

• HOWEVER, IN THE ACTUAL VOTE TALLY BUSH BEGAN TO TAKE A WIDE LEAD EARLY IN FLORIDA, AND BY 10 P.M. EST THE NETWORKS HAD RETRACTED THEIR PREDICTION OF A GORE VICTORY AND PLACED FLORIDA BACK INTO THE "UNDECIDED" COLUMN

FLORIDA RECOUNT? (2)

• AT 2:30 AM, WITH 85% OF THE VOTES COUNTED IN FLORIDA AND BUSH LEADING GORE BY MORE THAN 100,000 VOTES, THE NETWORKS DECLARED THAT BUSH HAD CARRIED FLORIDA

• HOWEVER, MOST OF THE REMAINING VOTES TO BE COUNTED IN FLORIDA WERE LOCATED IN THREE HEAVILY DEMOCRATIC COUNTIES - BROWARD, MIAMI-DADE, AND PALM BEACH - AND AS THEIR VOTES WERE REPORTED GORE BEGAN TO GAIN ON BUSH

• BY 4:30 AM, AFTER ALL VOTES WERE COUNTED, GORE HAD NARROWED BUSH'S MARGIN TO JUST OVER 2,000 VOTES, AND THE NETWORKS RETRACTED THEIR PREDICTIONS THAT BUSH HAD WON FLORIDA

• GORE, WHO HAD PRIVATELY CONCEDED THE ELECTION TO BUSH, NOW WITHDREW HIS CONCESSION AND ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD WAIT FOR A RECOUNT IN FLORIDA BEFORE ANY FURTHER ACTION

FLORIDA RECOUNT? (3)

• FLORIDA STATE LAW PROVIDED FOR AN AUTOMATIC RECOUNT DUE TO THE SMALL MARGINS

• THERE WERE GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF THE VOTING PROCESS, ESPECIALLY SINCE A SMALL CHANGE IN THE VOTE COUNT COULD CHANGE THE RESULT

• THE FINAL OFFICIAL FLORIDA COUNT GAVE THE VICTORY TO BUSH BY 537 VOTES

• THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULED 4-3 IN FAVOR OF A MANUAL RECOUNT

COUNTING VOTES BY HAND

BUSH VS. GORE• AFTER TRYING TO STOP THE

RECOUNT IN FLORIDA’S SUPREME COURT, BUSH’S LAWYERS TOOK THEIR ARGUMENT TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

• ON DECEMBER 9TH THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT'S METHOD FOR RECOUNTING BALLOTS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

• ON DECEMBER 12TH THE COURT HELD THAT NO ALTERNATIVE METHOD COULD BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE

• THE RULING STOPPED THE RECOUNT AND BUSH WAS DECLARED THE PRESIDENT-ELECT; AT THE TIME BUSH’S LEAD WAS ONLY 154 VOTES

CONTROVERSIES (1)• CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

– JEB BUSH, BROTHER OF GEORGE W. BUSH, WAS THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA

– KATHERINE HARRIS, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FLORIDA AND THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE ELECTION PROCEDURES, WAS ALSO BUSH’S CAMPAIGN CHAIRWOMAN

– THE SUPREME COURT:• CLARENCE THOMAS' WIFE SERVED ON THE BUSH

TRANSITIONAL TEAM, TO FIND CANDIDATES FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICES

• ANTONIN SCALIA HAD TWO SONS WHO WERE CONNECTED WITH LAW FIRMS REPRESENTING BUSH

• WILLIAM REHNQUIST AND SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR HAD EXPRESSED INTEREST IN RETIRING UNDER A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION - REHNQUIST DIED AND O’CONNOR RETIRED AFTER BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT

CONTROVERSIES (2)• CONFUSING BUTTERFLY BALLOTS USED IN PALM

BEACH:– PRODUCED AN UNUSUALLY HIGH NUMBER OF

VOTES FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE PAT BUCHANAN

• HANGING CHADS

• KATHERINE HARRIS’ “SCRUB LIST”:– NEARLY 1% OF FLORIDA'S ELECTORATE AND

NEARLY 3% OF ITS AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTERS - 96,000 CITIZENS WERE LISTED AS FELONS AND REMOVED FROM THE VOTING ROLLS

PALM BEACH’S BUTTERFLY BALLOT

JEB BUSH & KATHERINE HARRIS

EFFECTS

• ELECTION REFORM EFFORTS:– USE OF MODERN ELECTRONIC VOTING

MACHINES:• PROBLEM=NO PAPER TRAIL!

– IMPROVEMENTS AND LIMITS ON MEDIA PREDICTIONS & “CALLS”

• ONCE AGAIN: DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT!

• People really began to question the validity of our voting system.

IN CONCLUSION: WHAT IF?• BASED ON THE RESULTS IN FLORIDA, IT IS

CLEAR THIS ELECTION COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY:– INCONCLUSIVE MEDIA STUDIES:

• FOUR CONCLUDED THAT GORE WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION IF A FULL RECOUNT WAS TAKEN

• THREE SIDED WITH BUSH• IRONICALLY, UNDER RECOUNT RULES REQUESTED BY

GORE, BUSH WOULD HAVE WON; UNDER RULES REQUESTED BY BUSH, GORE WOULD HAVE WON!

• LINGERING QUESTIONS:– HOW WOULD THE GORE PRESIDENCY HAVE

BEEN DIFFERENT?– HOW MUCH DOES THE POPULAR VOTE MATTER?– WHAT IS THE BEST VOTING METHOD?

ASSIGNMENT

SHOULD THE U.S. DO AWAY WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND GO TO A POPULAR VOTE IN SELECTING PRESIDENTS? WHY OR WHY NOT?

WRITE ONE FULL SIDE OF A SHEET OF PAPER (MINIMUM) IN ANSWERING THIS QUESTION.