More handpicked essays just for you.
The presidential election of 2000 , essay
Essays on the 2000 presidential election
Essays on the 2000 presidential election
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Because of the winner-takes-all system, some presidents have won the election without the majority of the popular vote. In the 48 states that use the winner-takes-all system, whichever candidate wins that state’s popular vote receives all of the electoral votes for that particular state. The data gathered from the 2000 election demonstrates that despite winning the popular vote by about 540,000 votes, Al Gore proceeded to lose the election to George W. Bush by only 5 electoral votes. Florida’s 29 electoral votes were the deciding factor in this election. Because of the winner-takes-all system, when Bush won the popular vote in Florida, he was awarded with these votes, costing Gore the election.
Some obstacles that third parties face include voters believing that their vote for a third party candidate is a waste, since that candidate is unlikely to win. Also, third parties usually focus on a single personality or a single issue and that can lead to less popularity among voters. However, the most significant obstacle a third party faces is the winner-take-all system, where in the majority of states, the presidential candidate gets all the state’s electoral votes with the highest percentage of votes. This basically takes all the chances of a third party wining a presidential election.
The electoral college is unfair to the third party because they don’t get votes from the electoral college. Based on the presidential election from 1980 and 1992, it have show that the third party don’t get electoral vote(Doc B). The third party have a disadvantage which make it impossible for the third party to win the election because of the “winner take it all” system. According to George Will, he say that it discriminate smaller party and only help the main two parties(Doc E). The electoral college supports a two party system, discourages third party, and thereby restrict choices available to the
Watching this year’s election was shocking. Against all predictions, against every analysis, Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States. But were those predictions really off? As the LA Times put it,” Hillary Clinton got roughly the same number of votes that President Obama received four years ago en route to his reelection, but she nonetheless lost the presidency to Donald Trump, who came in at least 2.8 million votes behind her.” This is, of course, because of the electoral college.
“In 1980 and 1992 the third party candidates received 6.6% and 18.9% of the popular vote but both received 0% of the Electoral Vote” (Document B). This is a significant difference of the popular vote and the electoral votes. It is not a correct representation of the citizens’ votes. Arthur Schlesinger wrote, “The abolition of state-by-state, winner-take-all electoral votes would speed the disintegration of the already weakened two-party system” (Document E). The Electoral College voters mostly belong to Republican and Democratic parties therefore they do not want a third party candidate to win.
In the 1992 presidential election the candidate that got the most swing state votes also won the election; out of 17 swing states for that year Clinton, the winner, won 11 of them. For every rule there is an exception and the 1996 presidential election is just that. President Clinton ended up winning the election over all; however his opponent won in the swing states. Clinton was only able to win his second term because he won 31 out of 50 states over all. During the following national election, 2000, Bush won the swing states by 72,949 votes.
The citizen would be voting for who they want instead of what others want which in the end is right. Another reason is the third party candidate can be a better option compared to the running candidates of the two main parties. If the two main parties don't believe in the same policies then the citizen will have a third option. For example in the current debate the two main parties have candidates that the people disagree with yet they still support them because of the two party system.
The election of 1796, John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson. The former won by only 3 single electoral college votes. In a highly competitive, controversial race filled with fake smiles and harsh glares, those votes made all the difference in the world to these two men and their running mates. Because George Washington refused a second term, political parties took root when election time came around. No one knew that this election in the early stages of Americas development would define the future of the United States of America.
Is there a way to predict the country’s achievement in the next few years by looking at how political parties have succeeded in the past? My studies use data from 1948 to show the association between the political party in power and their effects on improving the country’s economy. I decided that, a good, practical way of measuring a country’s economy improvement is by observing how employment rate and inflation is affected over time. In this study, I took a closer look at how these two factors are affected by the most important political representatives. These political representatives being; highest national ranked (president) and the highest at state level (governors).
Political parties greatly influence and affect how Americans vote. Political parties are essentially the main source of support for elected officials. The parties are who choose the leaders that they want to represent them and support these leaders in the elections. This alone is a big affect parties have had on how Americans vote. Delegates are no longer sent to the electoral college because they represent the people, but because they represent the parties.
The significant election of 2000 with George W. Bush and Al Gore made a huge impact. With the close statistics of the race, there are various polls taken that suggest whether Bush or Gore should have won. Others may believe that the difference in votes throughout different groups may have had an effect on the numbers. Statistics show that Al Gore’s popular vote was 48.38%, while Bush’s was 47.87%.
The United States Presidential election that took place in the year 2000 was between George Bush and Al Gore. The vote was very close and it ended up all coming down to Florida. Once the votes were counted and it was revealed that Bush had won, Gore wanted a recount of the votes. The matter was taken to the Florida supreme court and Gore ended up winning the case.
Third parties key roles is to despite their lack of success in the polls, they can always affect American politics in several different ways like: introducing new ideas by proposing new government policies and ideas, putting issues on the agenda by forcing major parties to address devising problems and keeping the major parties
During the start of our world the framers of the Constitution despised the thought of their being political parties, many thought of political parties as being illegitimate they were unanimously against them and the emergence of the third parties in and their impact on politics in America was a strong one. The thought of having no parties didn’t last long and the very first third party came forward, the Anti-Masons. The Anti-Masons appeared in 1828 under the lead of Clay Whig after the disappearance of William Morgan. This third party was highly opposed to Free Masonry because back then you couldn’t become anything or move forward in society unless you were a Free Mason; this was near impossible considering that there was favoritism in that
I think that political parties are not very good at organizing the political interests of citizens. They create party platforms that seek to inform voters in hopes that they will agree with that party's positions on issues. However, parties can change their positions about major issues or have unclear positions. If a party has certain positions on different issues that few people agree with than they would not have as much support from voters. Political parties can increase their voter turnout by being more responsive in order to engage citizens.
