Fact Check: Al Gore did NOT win a majority of the popular vote in 2000

[dolstein]

I just had to cringe when I heard that oh-so-annoying moderator of the Dean-Nader debate casually remark that Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote in the last presidential election.

Call me old fashioned, but when I grew up, I was taught that the word "majority" means greater than 50%. And the last time I checked, 48.38% (Gore's share of the popular vote: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm) was still less than 50%.

What Gore received was a PLURALITY of the popular vote. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996. Hell, I'd gladly settle for a plurality of the popular vote in 2004, provided Kerry gets a majority of the electoral vote, which is what really matters.

So for those of you who continue to talk about the 2000 election, please consider using the word plurality when discussing Gore's share of the popular vote. And if you MUST use the word majority, please make it clear that you are talking about Gore's share of the major party vote.

[gmoney]

1. Picky picky...

Say "plurality" to the average person and you'll get a blank stare.

[cidliz2004]

2. Ditto

especially to dittoheads!

[DBoon]

4. "more votes than Bush" is correct and to the point

n/t

[flutter by]

3. Yeah, but

from the same source I see that Bush only got 47.87%. Call it what you will, those fundie-cons would have to look 'plurality' up in the dictionary. If they could spell it, that is. I'd bet they think it's a pickup truck with extra wheels!

;-)

[Mika]

6. Plurality is librul for "Sore Loserman"

..and oh yeah, get over it. :evilgrin:

[TSIAS]

5. Understood

That's the term I try to use. Of course, Gore should have received the MAJORITY of electoral votes. That's all that matters.

[Mika]

7. Its the "winner take all" electoral system that is undemocratic

If there were proportional electoral representation in all states.. Gore would be in the WH.

[dolstein]

8. Actually, I think it depends

I believe Gore would have won if electoral votes were allocated among the states based on the number of seats the state had in the U.S. House of Representatives. The way things work now, the number of electoral votes is based on the number of the seats in the House PLUS the two senate seats, which worked to the benefit of Bush because of all the sparsely populated Republican states in the West.

However, if the electoral votes were allocated to each candidate based on the number of congressional districts they carried, I'm not sure which candidate would have won. I believes the results would have been nearly as close as the actual outcome.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. BY congressionsal districts, Bush would've won.

I'd post this if I could find it, but I do remember reading that Bush would've won by a more comfortable margin if districts were in play. Likewise, b/c of Republican-dominated gerrymandering, Bush would win even more electoral votes this time around if he won by the same margins he did in 2000.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. You Are Correct

The Simian In Chief won more congressional districts than Gore....

[LimpingLib]

11. like 234-191 going by memory

[leyton]

12. But if electoral votes were apportioned to states based on the House,

that is, if it was winner-take-all, but there were no two Senate votes for each state, Gore would have won with a reasonable margin.

[tinanator]

14. IF they counted the votes he would be in

I think that is the single most significant point.

[quaoar]

13. Some for instances...

If electoral votes had been won by congressional district, Gore would have won two of Georgia's votes, but Bush would have won three of Maryland's and a whopping 27 of California's.