Talk:2000 United States presidential election/Archive 5

Where is the finance portion
This article should contain the finance portion and cost per vote as the 2004 and 2008 articles do.209.68.160.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC).

More consequences section
I removed the text: "According to the Washington Post, Voter News Service exit polling showed that '47% of Nader voters would have gone for Gore if it had been a two-man race, and only 21% for Bush.'[51] Based on these theoretical numbers for Florida, Gore would have had a margin of some 25,000 votes over Bush if it were to have been a two-way election. Many commentators believe that if Nader had not run, Gore would have won both New Hampshire and Florida, winning the election with 296 electoral votes. (Gore only needed one of the two to win.)"

This data does not account for how other third-party voters would have voted. Herr Lip (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular votes
Is it correct that right on the top of the article it is shown that Al Gore got less popular votes (nominal and percental) that George W. Bush?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.44.18 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It actually shows the Al Gore received more votes than George W. Bush. The articles states that George Bush received only 50,456,002, and Al Gore received 50,999,897. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of popular votes, what is the source for the vote totals? Dave Leip's "United States Presidential Election Results" shows Gore at 51,003,926 and Bush at 50,460,110. The FEC source cited in the lead paragraph has different results. Leip's total for 2004 matches the totals in the article. Since the Electoral College vote is the only vote that matters, perhaps there isn't an official Federal source for this? --Rillian (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We should always use an official source for the popular vote. That would be the Federal Election Commission. The FEC takes the official vote totals from all the states (each of which officially certifies its votes), and it adds them up to get the national popular vote numbers. We should always use a published source such as this, as David Leip's election atlas is personally made and can't really be considered a reliable source. Tim  meh  !  03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a citation that the FEC is mandated by law to produce an official national popular vote total? Regarding Leip's reliability, his sources are the totals published by the Secretary of State (or the equivalent) for each state. Sounds reliable to me. Rillian (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't know if the FEC is mandated to do that, but it probably is a more reliable source. Wouldn't you think that it would make more sense to use popular vote numbers published by a federal commission rather than numbers from a website made by an independent individual? Also, the FEC also claims to use numbers from state elections offices, so one must be getting the wrong numbers or adding them wrong. Tim  meh  !  21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, a gov't source is more reliable than a private individual.PonileExpress (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would that be so? Rillian (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an official source, and its method of compiling the national numbers is known and legitimate. Tim  meh  !  16:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Until we can find a citation that describes its mandate to publish a final popular vote total, it is not an official source, simply a governmental source. There is nothing inherently more reliable in a government source than a non-government source simply due to the fact that it is a governmental. Employees of a government agency make errors just like people at non-government sources. Rillian (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though it certainly cannot be proven that the FEC, or the governmental source is more accurate, it should be assumed to be so unless otherwise proven, because it has a record of established credibility. For the same reason, we, without having any additional information, would believe a teacher before a student with information relevant to the former's field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.166.111 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The popular vote for Al Gore keeps getting set in bold. This isn't the format used for any of the other Presidential election pages and seeing as such, it shouldn't be used here.
 * Agreed. Popular totals now in regular type. --70.181.171.159 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Popular votes are set in bold for other U.S. elections, seeing as it has become the set standard, I suggest the electoral vote and popular vote of the victor be placed in bold for all U.S. presidential elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.199.231 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Status of Bradley delegates at Dem convention
In the section on the Democratic convention, it states "None of Bradley's delegates were allowed to vote for him, so Gore won the nomination unanimously." However, the article on the convention says "On the day before the convention started Bill Bradley released his delegates and directed them to vote for Gore."

"Not allowed to vote for him" sounds like it was an official policy/procedural matter decided by the party and, IMO, would warrant further explanation. "Released his delegates" sounds like Bradley acknowledged defeat and endorsed Gore.

Neither of these statements is specifically sourced in articles. Does anyone know what actually happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryJeff (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Orin Hatch listed in delegate count?
Is there a reason to have Orin Hatch listed in the delegate count at the Republican convention with 0 delegates? I removed his name from the list, but I'm interested to know if anyone thinks he needs to be included. LarryJeff (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I see no reason to include someone in a delegate count if there were no delegates to be counted.--JayJasper (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal precedent of Bush v. Gore
My reading of the source provided is that whether the decision can be "cited as precedent" is a matter of dispute among legal scholars. I don't think it appropriate for this to be presented as fact in an encyclopedic article. I intend to remove it. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox/Nader
I know that we've got a two-party system, but Ralph Nader won electoral votes in the state of New Hampshire. Why isn't he shown in the infobox alongside Bush and Gore?
 * No, he didn't. Bush won all four electoral votes in NH. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nader as Spoiler
Let's not forget that the "spoiling" that Nader's presence did is not limited to the votes he received. His presence was the source of some amount of decisive acrid debate among the progresssive Left and greens during the campaign, which chewed up time and energy.

Why did al gore revieve more popular votes,but fewer electoral votes than George Bush?
Why id al gore recieve more popular votes, but fewer electoral votes than George Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.223.220 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Al Gore received more popular votes, but lost the election, because of the way the electoral college works. Since more votes are given to larger (population) states, winning all the votes in smaller states doesn't guarantee you victory.  It did all come down to one state though.   Shan  man  7  02:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ballot access
While the term "ballot access" is blued with-in the chart, it would be more helpful if it were briefly explained or defined in an introductory sentence. Not everyone has fast computers that make it worthwhile trying to use a link and then go back to an article just to understand what a term means (notall the ins and outs of a term, for which a link is good).211.225.34.183 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting this; the vote totals are way off and no sources are cited to support the data for ballot access. 71.188.115.167 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem?
I'm just looking around, but I noticed the box in the right claims Gore won Florida in electoral votes (291 instead of the article's 266). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.61.172 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

George P. Shultz's central role in supporting Bush
On 25 February 2011, I added the following at the beginning of the article. In my opinion, the deletion by Fat&Happy is unwarranted:

George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

"1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html" Italus (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It reads like a blog entry about the Frontline program, rather than an encyclopedia entry about how Bush came to become the nominee, sourced to that program, but I imagine that's because you're unfamiliar with WP:Cite. The general support I'd expressed at the other page was for a more concise reading of the central point.  I'd suggest something like:
 * During a trip to Palo Alto, California, to visit conservative think tank the Hoover Institution, Bush was invited by George P. Shultz to dinner to discuss policy issues with experts including Michael Boskin, John B. Taylor and Condoleezza Rice. The group, looking for a presidential candidate "they can work with", told him they were impressed that, as Shultz put it, Bush had "a good seat-of-the-pants for it".
 * The ref I have included is blank; open the edit window an dfill in the reference fields that are relevant and delete those that are not. Most relevant are title, url, access and air dates, and network.  You want to focus on the central point as presented in the source, and let the interested reader find the fuller quotes and characterizations when they click to access that source.  Abrazame (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just found the full transcript of the Frontline program at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/etc/script.html, where the Shultz quotations in my first ref can be found. Italus (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Should Sarah Plain be included under Steve Forbes notable endorsements, since she was NOT notable at the time and therefore would have had little public impact on the race outside of the Wasilla community? Neil Kelty (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A better question is, why is there an "endorsements" section in this article? If I'm not mistaken, there is a consensus within the community that such lists belong only in the candidate-in-question's campaign article (if one exists) or in the candidate's bio page in the "campaign" section, and not in election articles.--JayJasper (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Palin should not be in that section for the reason cited, she was the mayor of an obscure small town at the time, and if endorsements belong here (I defer to consensus on that), they would belong as testament to a candidate's appeal to culturally or politically relevant persons of the day, and an indication of the relative impact such an endorsement would have had on the candidacy at that time. Mayor Palin's appointment to a state committee for Forbes in 2000 does not seem to be technically an endorsement by her, and its relevance to Wikipedia would seem to be limited to her own biography—but is something I'm not surprised to find does not appear there.  Abrazame (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Results without an electoral college
I believe the conclusion of this retrospective article by Nate Silver of the NY Times would be worth pointing. Basically, the cash advantage of Mr. Bush would have been allocated differently if there was no electoral college. Due to the diminishing returns of advertising in the same market repeatedly, it is not guaranteed that Mr. Gore would have won the popular vote if the Electoral College were not in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.47.11 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency
I feel like the statement in this article is at odds with the statement in the 2000 election article, but I don't know enough about this to say which is right. Does anyone have any insights? Maybe they're not inconsistent for an obscure reason not readily apparent?

This article says, "If Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.[1][2]"

The 2000 election article says, "However, had the Gore campaign asked for and received a statewide recount, the same research indicates that Gore would have probably won the recount by about 100 votes statewide, consequently giving him Florida's electoral votes and victory in the Presidential election.[4][5]"

It seems to me that both articles are referring to a hand recount of the entire state's ballots, but obviously there's a discrepancy. AgnosticAphid talk 23:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Debate incident
I don't see this mentioned in the debates section. It was certainly a notable moment. Just throwing it out there.--Philpill691 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Added source in "more consequences" section for problems with electronic voting
Replaced "citation needed" for statement that electronic voting machines introduced new problems rather than solving existing ones. Chapter is entitled "Electronic Voting: An Invitation for Fraud" and the cited pages speak specifically about problems in the 2004 election. Authors of book are, respectively, a University of Pennsylvania professor specializing in research methods and survey design, and editor of the venerable national periodical In These Times. This addition of a source where there was none should be entirely noncontroversial.Jimmyb10 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes regarding post-recount studies and analysis
I have made some substantial changes to the end of the main section and to the post-recount section below regarding post-recount analysis of Florida ballots, to correct the misperception that the recount was only being done in select counties at the time the US Supreme Court intervened (the FLorida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all counties of undervotes, which was underway), which in turn argues for downplaying the likelihood that Bush would have remained the winner. This may go against the conventional wisdom and the official interpretation of mainstream media, but read through the entry and my comment here and check the sources, I think you will find a very convincing case for the changes and against merely repeating the conventional wisdom (even if it comes from the New York Times). If the statewide recount had been permitted to continue and considered only undervotes, opinion differs as to who would have won. Most popular media say Bush would have, but most sources concede that under most standards for judging votes Gore wins, and the Florida State U source states that Gore would have won even if only undervotes were counted, no matter what standard was used,inclusive or restrictive, uniform statewide or according to county law. Both FSU and Freeman/Bleifuss are reputable sources who examined the results with much greater care than any media outlet could and came to the unequivocal conclusion that any statewide recount, including a partial recount of only undervotes, would have left Gore the winner. But the biggest shortcoming I've corrected is that it is very likely that the recount would have been widened to include ALL uncounted votes, including overvotes, which not only outnumbered undervotes by almost 2-to-1, but using a liberal standard to judge voter intent, favored Gore by more than 3-to-1, giving him a margin of 47,000 votes! Judge Lewis is quoted as saying that there is nothing in Florida law that says to count undervotes but not overvotes, and Newsweek and other sources reported faxes between Lewis and other judges that indicate overvotes were very likely going to be included at the Sunday hearing he had scheduled, had the Supreme Court not stepped in on Saturday; this is directly from a primary source responsible for that decision. FAIR's criticism of the Consortium's hasty and misleading coverage is credible and reputable, and argues against the peculiar emphasis on what the results would have been if only the counties Gore had requested were included, since that had already been overruled by the Florida Supreme Court in favor of a statewide recount, which was already in progress. These are not the only sources that can be brought to bear, but I would hope they are sufficient to make these modifications, regardless of whether they jibe with conventional wisdom.

I have probably made several non-conforming citations or other form errors, so please forgive me, I am still relatively new at editing, and I've made an effort. Please correct form or point me to things that need correcting. Jimmyb10 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Another change, minor, to post-recount section
In the paragraph preceding the one I made major changes to, I noticed in the first sentence that "the Media Consortium" was the first instance referring to the consortium. As far as I can see, not only were the members of consortium not defined in the body of the article, but "Media Consortium" did not constitute an official title and thus should not be capitalized. I base this on the manner in which the Newsweek and FAIR articles I cited in the previous edit to the next paragraph refer to it. Hopefully this is noncontroversial; even if it may be referred to in capitals somewhere else, the composition of the consortium is worth mentioning. I used the FAIR article as the reference, since it has a complete list that could simply be cut and pasted. I also made the reference to the University of Chicago a link to that article. Jimmyb10 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing and misleading information
The "what-if" scenarios are extremely confusing and misleading. Although this article has the gall to criticize the mainstream media for misleading people about their own study, it itself conceals from the reader the fact that the Florida Supreme Court only ordered the undervotes to be counted, thus making the "full recount" scenarios described highly improbable. The article supplies speculation that the overvotes may have been eventually included, but given the legal obstacles involved all it is is speculation.

The Commission found that under most recount scenarios, Bush would have won the election, but Gore would have won using the most generous standards

In fact, Bush won 3 recount scenarios and the fourth recount scenario involved a Gore victory by an insignificant 3 votes.

Florida State University professor of public policy Lance deHaven-Smith observed that, even considering only undervotes, "under any of the five most reasonable interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, Gore does, in fact, more than make up the deficit."

No details whatsoever are given to support this statement. It simply ignores the undervote recount scenarios in both consortiums that show Bush victories.

I will modify the article accordingly unless someone can point out something I might be missing.

71.65.125.27 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not misleading, your criticisms are already answered with sources
Your criticisms seem to be merely because they disagree with your view and the sources you choose to believe, because there is ample documentation from multiple source in support of the conclusion that Gore would have won under most reasonable scenarios. You prize the media consortium's study above all else, but the sources cited say why that review was flawed. Several impartial and academic sources criticized the media consortium's review and its conclusion, so it is not the article having the gall to disagree with your/their view, it is the experts on the topic who are amply cited.

It is also neither "unlikely" nor purely "speculation" that overvotes would have been included. It is stated (with sources) that a hearing was scheduled by the Florida judge in charge of the recount for Sunday to consider including overvotes before the US Supreme Court stepped in, and that same judge has made subsequent public comments that strongly indicate he didn't see any legal reason to exclude overvotes. And if overvotes had been counted, Gore almost certainly would have won. The Washington Post analyzed 2.7 million votes from Florida's eight largest counties, and found that on overvotes Gore's name was punched 46,000 time to Bush's 17,000 times.

'''The deHaven-Smith statement included a citation of the source, a book published by the University Press of Florida in which he analyzed all the data and prior studies, and came to that conclusion. Because Dr. deHaven-Smith came to a different conclusion than consortium's undervote recount scenarios does not mean he ignored them.''' He has been studying Florida politics and elections for 25 years, and his conclusion doesn't need specific details to support within an already long encyclopedia article. If you doubt his conclusion and want details, go read his book, the citation is there. Or read this interview http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html

Your revisions are baseless, because they revise material which is well-cited from credible sources. I don't have time to undo your biased revision now, but I hope someone else who looks over the whole article and the sources cited will undo the slanting of the article toward Bush and the media conventional wisdom.

Jimmyb10 (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"plurality" should be "majority"
The article states, "This marked the fourth election in U.S. history in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote". In fact, Gore had the plurality of votes, although no candidate won a majority. See dictionary definition of the word plurality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.0.65 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for spotting the error.--JayJasper (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. I see that you (and I) now see that "plurality" is correct in the context of the statement.--JayJasper (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't attack the purveyor of established fact
Before I proceed, I'm just saying that I'm going to add a section about the media's bias in favor of Bush in the campaign. And let me say I'm not a water carrier for Gore - I voted for neither of these fortunate sons in 2000, so any perceived bias on my part is baseless (and as for my username, it is no way a knock against Bush, but a tribute to him as the coiner of hilarious phrases).The Strategery Decider (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding the aformentioned section will be fine as long the content is verified by reliable secondary sources and adheres to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality in viewpoint & tone, and due weight.--JayJasper (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

FOX NEWS
this article is wrong.

The first media announce about Bush winning was FOX NEWS on 8 november at 2:16 A.M. That call was made by John ELLIS (bush first cousin).

The others medias followed FOX NEWS, that make a big difference about the events... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.50.192.154 (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I just add a comment about wikipedia, lack of decent FACTS sometimes. You can check everywhere, the first channel announce BUSH as a winner was FOX NEWS, followed by CBS ABC CNN NBC, all those channel have contract with VNS (poll results), same information... BUT it was fake

its very important... who where working at FOX NEWS PLEASE ? JOHN ELLIS first cousin's W. BUSH

Conflict of interest its the whole story of united states isn't ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.50.192.154 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on United States presidential election, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131011033728/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/07/gore.lieberman/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/07/gore.lieberman/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150115031913/http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/bush.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

False statement of facts
The starting paragraph ("The United States presidential election of 2000 was the 54th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000.") is false,

The presidential election was held later, when the electoral college meet. it was held in Dec. 18 vote of the Electoral college.Milton (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of footnote is unclear
Under the national results table, it says "(b) results were Bush 18,075 (51.6%), Gore 16,549 (47.2%), and Browne 420 (1.2%).[61]"

18,075 what?? What do the numbers mean? 167.220.24.144 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It was 18,075 advisory votes from Guam, sourced from http://web.archive.org/web/20020425113542/http://ballot-access.org/2000/1116.html#13, which is cited in a footnote. This could probably be presented more clearly perhaps I'll try to improve that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the table in the National results section
After looking at the above, I've edited the table. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The table footnote saying, "Source (Electoral and Popular Vote): Federal Elections Commission Electoral and Popular Vote Summary" linked to a source containing state by state info for Bush, Gore, and "All others". I dug around, and found That provides support for all candidates listed in this table, including the 51,186 votes for "other". I've changed the sourcing footnote for the table.
 * The 18,750 votes which was asked about above had little or no relationship to the "other" entries here where that info was footnoted. As explained above, those votes were from Guam, and did not impact the electoral vote count by which the election was decided. These votes were apparently not included in the FEC popular vote count from which the info in this table was sourced, and I've removed this footnote. The info re the Guam advisory votes might possibly be of interest elsewhere in this article, but is probably not of interest regarding this table.

Dispute neutrality
I wish to dispute the neutrality of this article. Reading the various scenarios, there appears to be an unreasonably heavy amount of information included supporting Gore's potential victory, with little of the information of Bush's victory to counterbalance for neutrality. There are just as many studies that concluded Bush the rightful victor, but those are left from this section. USA Today concluded Bush would have tripled his margin of victory had the undervote ballots been hand-recounted. The article also makes no mention that the NORC study could not consider some 2200 votes that counties could not deliver for consideration, nor does it state that Gore only requested a recount of the undervotes, clearly won by Bush.

Any reasonable read of the article must conclude the article attempts to persuade the reader that Gore was the rightful victor. The article, on it's face, is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.2.169 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Recount paragraph starting with "Ultimately, a media consortium"  goes on to cite 7 uber liberal medial outlets and one right leaning outlet (WSJ) having concluded, unsurprisingly, that Gore won.  Next recount paragraph containing, "University of Pennsylvania researcher Steven F. Freeman and journalist Joel Bleifuss" is citing the uber liberal Ivy League school University of Penn, the self admitted progressive (liberal) researcher Steven F Freeman and uber liberal journalist Joe Bleifuss who writes for the extreme Left publication "In these Times" also concluded that, unsurprisingly, Gore won.  The UNDUE WEIGHT accorded these obviously partisan "analyses" without the corresponding weight of conservative outlets is demeaning to the standards established by Wikipedians.  N0w8st8s (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Buchanan photo is from at least 10 years after 2000
Gives the impression that voters had only a haggard-looking candidate to vote for in Buchanan. Needs to be updated by someone with ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise for the Herman Cain photo, which is from his 2012 campaign.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Nader Infobox
Ralph Nader did not receive any electoral votes, yet many believe that he did have an effect on the outcome of the election and is a significant character in the 2000 election overall. John B. Anderson and Ross Perot did not receive electoral votes either but were included because they affected the outcome of the election. There were also protests due to Nader's expulsion from the debates. David copperson (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Five percent of the popular vote is used as the threshold for inclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason for that threshold? 98.198.195.201 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is accepted by scholars as the threshold for a successful third party candidacy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then, maybe Nader should be deleted from the infobox because he won less than five precent. Plus the idea he hurt Gore is speculation, not actual fact. Est300 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
 * No, it is NOT accepted by scholars as a threshold for a successful third party candidate and never has. Strom Thurmond in 1948 won three states and got a smaller national total than Nader. Same with Byrd in 1960. Henry Wallace was considered a major candidate, although he collapsed at the last minute and came in fourth.Ericl (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The end of this section reads: "but it did not end it." (WHAT did not end WHAT?)Unclemikejb2 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is accepted by scholars and political scientists as a threshold of third party/independent candidate success. See:


 * , page 4: "most scholars follow Walter Dean Burnham, who defined 'successful' third parties as those that attract at least 5 percent of the vote. By the Burham standard, Ross Perot's electoral movement in 1992 and his Reform candidacy in 1996 were extraordinarily successful."
 * : "The 5% threshold was taken from Walter Dean Burnham’s (1970) definition of a successful minor party. The idea is that the 5% cut-off point is a good indication that a political realignment is occurring and there are new issues in the country that the political parties are not addressing."
 * , 13th (or so) paragraph: "In the hundred years from 1864 to 1964 there were only three elections in which the presidential candidate of a minor party received more than five percent of the vote. Since then this threshold has been exceeded by......"
 * Chapter 1, p. 5-6: "To establish a clear, unambiguous measure of success for this study, Burnham‟s 'five percent' definition of success is employed: only third-party candidates who received more than five percent of the vote are included in the analysis that follows."
 * 5% is also the minimum % needed for a candidate to qualify for primary federal matching funds. See:


 * 
 * 
 * , last paragraph: "Nader concentrated on obtaining 5 percent of the national vote, the minimum necessary to secure federal matching funds for the Green Party for future presidential campaigns."
 * Thus, 5% of the popular vote is a standard we use for listing candidates - post-election - in the infobox, along with winning electoral votes (excluding those gained by faithless electors). Nader is not included in the infobox because he meets neither of these criteria.--JayJasper (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of focus towards his campaign, which is still an ongoing controversy, I feel that the information should be up there. Then again, I'd prefer having all the major third-parties up, too. An encyclopedia should be inclusive of knowledge, and I find the (oftentimes failed) campaigns highly interesting. It makes it easier for people to quickly see who ran and what the results were, and it's a shame for the chance for people to learn about things like the New Alliance party running the first FEMALE AFRICAN AMERICAN CANDIDATE in 1988. I just like having it all organized and easy to see. Coolgamer (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Nader should definitely be in the infobox, just for practical reasons. He played a significant part in the election, and you should be able to find his vote total (2.74%) easily by checking this article. It shouldn't be something you have to search for or scroll through have the article to find. --Surachit (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ralph Nader should definitely be in the infobox. His candidacy is one of the most notable aspects of the campaign. --TM 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * He fails to meet the 5% threshold and did not win any electoral votes. That is the consensus threshold. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on United States presidential election, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110227194045/http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ballot-access.org/2000/1001.html#17
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/2000.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2000
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/PCC/ChAll.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Failed. The archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#2000 is entirely unsuitable for the links which it purportedly replaces.Jeff in CA (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Electorate turnout
Notably absent from the "Results by state" table is the percentage of electorate turnout. It's incomplete to give a total number of votes without a sense of how many people were eligible to vote in the election. czar 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Vote For Ralph Nader's Inclusion Or Exclusion In The Info-Box
Ralph Nader got a tiny bit over 2% of the popular vote in this election. That's a big percentage when compared to other third party popular vote percentages in modern times. He may have even been the reason why George Walker Bush won. However, it could've instead been because of how Gore campaigned, or even the Supreme Court's decision on the re-count. Back in 2011, there was some talk on this page about whether or not Nader should be in the info-box, and it seemed like it was decided that he would be excluded. However, it's been about 5 years, so, I think we should re-open this case you guys should vote for what should happen. Type in "include" in bold if you vote for inclusion, and type in "exclude" in bold if you vote for exclusion. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I add to the consensus to include Nader. He undoubtedly played a role in the 2000 election despite only receiving 2%, which makes it reasonable to assume that even under 5% is enough to be worth featuring. Additionally, his 2% is still unusually high; during the 2012 election, only when all third party candidates' votes were combined could they surpass 1%, making Nader's 2% significant. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank-you so much for voting! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Exclude: I favor keeping the current consensus of including only candidates with at least 5% of the popular vote. For one thing, we should remain consistent across all prez election articles, so changing the criterion for inclusion might require broader consensus. Also, the chart on the right shows, in my opinion, that 5% is a good threshold to identify significant third party candidates within a two-party system. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank-you so much for voting! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - we cannot have a "vote" to include someone in the template against established consensus. If you want to change consensus make a comment on the current election article, USPE, 2016, which has a much higher visibility than this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion doesn't necessarily have to be moved, but it should definitely be advertised at the current election talk page as well as the WikiProject. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion about Nader in particular doesn't need to take place at all because it is null as against an established consensus across multiple pages.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Include: Many believe Nader played some sort of role in determining the outcome of this election. Even if he did not, he received nearly 3 percent of the vote: the best since for a third party candidate, and is frequently cited as being a major candidate; he received 10 percent of the vote in Alaska and at least 5 percent in 9 other states plus the District of Columbia. No third party candidate since then has received upwards of 5 percent in any state. MB298 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you're just blowing smoke because there is an established consensus across multiple pages that cannot change through this discussion since this is not the right place to discuss the matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude: we need to have a post-election inclusion criteria that's consistent across all U.S. presidential election articles. 5% nationwide is a non-arbitrary threshold since that's how many votes are required to be recognized by the government as a major candidate. If we include Nader on this infobox we run the risk of having a crowded post-election infobox for 2016. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that fact about the government's recognition. Well that pretty much settles the issue in my view. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude: The agreed 1 earned electoral vote or 5% popular vote threshold is a good objective way to ensure the infobox is representative of the election. Ralph Nader may have had an impact on the result, but that is irrelevant, the infobox should be used for contenders for the Presidency, not candidates considered to have had an 'impact'. JackWilfred (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Exclude: The five percentage point threshold is a good, objective standard. I also think that we should take the whole paragraph about Ralph Nader out of the lead of this article. Nader's candidacy was an interesting subplot of the election but it was hardly one of the defining features. Orser67 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (Include): Whether or not the candidate was "significant" or had an "impact" should not be dismissed as irrelevant as real examples of candidates that galvanized enough support and engaged enough voters to potentially change the outcome of the entire election even with under 5% of the popular vote acts as reason to believe that 5% is simply an arbitrary and unnecessary threshold. The only arguments for a 5% threshold to appear as candidates are mostly that it's the requirement to receive federal funding or solely because it's a nice number or solely because it's difficult to achieve. The idea that 5% makes you a true "contender" and not just a candidate is by all means invalid; if it is a contender in the sense of being capable of winning, then Nader should be displayed, and if contender means a candidate whose poll numbers are so high that the polls were competitive and there is a high change of them emerging as the winner, 5% would then be too low. Putting him in the infobox will not change the outcome of the election or create a mess in the page, it simply makes information regarding the election readily available in a nice format. I oppose the idea of a one-size-fits-all threshold and support the idea of featuring relevant information in its respective article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Election Results Map is the wrong election
could someone fix that quick, someone put the 2008 election and not the 2000 election :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.151.220 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Popular vote count
Someone tampered with the popular vote count. Does anyone have the correct numbers and can fix it? Thank you. 69.124.75.169 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See above under "FEC vs National Archives" for the links. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction about Florida recount in the lead
Have studies of potential results of a hypothetical full Florida recount reached "conflicting conclusions" or was an Al Gore victory "unambiguous and unavoidable"? — JFG talk 08:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC) There is a dispute about a sentence that. Before my edit and the subsequent, the lead section said:

And it followed with:

So which is it? If there are actually "conflicting conclusions" of various studies about hypothetical results of full recounts, the lead should keep just the first sentence and leave the details of which study says what to the appropriate Recounts or Disputes section of the article. Conversely, if the conclusions of Lance deHaven-Smith's study are considered "unambiguous and unavoidable" (not just by him) then the sentence about "conflicting conclusions" has to go. Please discuss. — JFG talk 08:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not deHaven-Smith's study. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey
Please indicate your support for Snippet A or Snippet B with a brief rationale.
 * You have posed a false choice. The passage now reads as this (and had been this way for 24 hours before the survey was put here):
 * "Studies have reached conflicting conclusions about who might have won the recount had it been allowed to proceed under conjectured scenarios in multiple counties. In contrast, according to Florida State University public policy professor Lance deHaven-Smith, based on 'the definitive study of the uncounted ballots', if all the legally valid votes in Florida had been counted statewide, Al Gore would have been the winner. This conclusion is 'unambiguous and unavoidable.'"
 * It's not a question of "either-or"; it's "on the one hand and on the other hand", thus pointing out an important contrast. The statement by deHaven-Smith concerns the statewide result from the NORC tabulation, in contrast to postulated sequences of events in county-based scenarios published by the Miami Herald. The "conflicting conclusions" are internal to the Miami Herald studies (it did two of them). The Herald offered up various scenarios based on what might have happened if events had gone in several different directions, some concluding with a Gore win and others concluding with a Bush win. The studies concern two qualitatively different things. The statements are not contradictory. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrong question. I think this RfC should be withdrawn, as the problem isn't inconsistency but noncompliance with our policies on verifiability, neutrality, non-free content, and lead-worthiness. Snippet A appears to be unsourced. If accurate, then inclusion of Snippet B without the conflicting studies is clearly non-neutral. In addition, the "unambiguous and unavoidable" quote is unattributed and therefore non-neutral and in violation of WP:NFC as well. It strikes me that Snippet B is also probably too detailed to be lead-worthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Longer comments and alternative proposals should go here.

FEC vs. National Archives
The popular vote totals given by the FEC, used in this article, are different from the totals listed in the Federal Register, i.e., the totals compiled by the National Archives from each state's Certificate of Ascertainment (see https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html). These certificates are the official documents that each state by law is required to submit to the National Archives. They list the vote totals for each candidate for the purpose of affirming the membership of the Electoral College and may be signed by the governor. Images are available at the National Archives site. The FEC totals for three states are less than the National Archives' numbers for both Bush and Gore: CT (Bush -10, Gore -644), KY (-28, -25), SC (-955, -476). The FEC totals for four states are more than the National Archives' numbers for both Bush and Gore: MD (Bush +73, Gore +1894), NE (+12, +4), OH (+846, +2562), WV (+2, 0). Overall the FEC has Bush with 60 fewer votes and Gore with 3315 more votes than the National Archives count shows. Note that the FEC table states that it was updated in December 2001. That might have something to do with it. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The totals compiled by the National Archives from each state's Certificate of Ascertainment; see https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html). (note: California submitted an amended Certificate of Ascertainment 12/27/2000, with amended vote totals, which are reflected):

Bush 50,456,062; Gore 50,996,582

The totals compiled by the Federal Election Commission (updated in December 2001); see https://web.archive.org/web/20170218051423/http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm:

Bush 50,456,002; Gore 50,999,897

Jeff in CA (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States presidential election, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ballot-access.org/2000/status.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212155920/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/election.wrap/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/election.wrap/
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20160328022236/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20131115051407/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html on http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Al Gore picture
Al Gore's picture in this article is from 6 years before the election; I realize that it's his official Vice Presidential portrait, but maybe it makes sense to find a free/fair-use picture closer to the election. 108.30.223.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Bush election pictures
Is there a reasoning behind why many of the pictures related to the 2000 presidential election use a different picture of George W. Bush than is used on his main page? WeatherMan142 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because the picture on Bush's main page was taken in 2003 while the current picture was taken in 2001 meaning the current picture more accurately depicts Bush from 2000. Al Gore2020 (talk) 8.26 9 may 2019 (UTC)

Pictures in the "results" section biased
You guys show 2 pictures from Democratic party loyalists and only one from a Republican party supporter. Erase the bias, please.

62.226.78.180 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). TJRC (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.


 * One of the two pictures of "Democratic Party loyalists" shows BOTH Bush and Gore supporters, as evidenced by the signs they are waving. Jeff in CA (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"Decision 2000" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Decision 2000. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional external links
CBS News http://web.archive.org/web/20000510024518/http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/section/0,1636,250-412,00.shtml WhisperToMe (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

exit polling/other section within it
there are 4 citations needed for this section. So, Cleanup on spill on aisle Exit polling we got a class 4 situation bring citations this one will be messy. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Campaign finance reform
The John McCain 2000 presidential campaign is what prompted John McCain and Russ Feingold to lead a movement for campaign finance reform which ended up materializing in 2002 when Republicans and Democrats alike ended up unanimously passing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act through both the House and Senate. Its provisions were so controversial corporations and labor unions on all sides of the political spectrum collaborated to get rid of it in a variety of Supreme Court cases like McConnell v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. They were eventually victorious in Citizens United v. FEC, which even led to the creations of super PACs. I would argue that such landmark changes within just decade that started in John McCain's campaign loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 United States presidential election in South Carolina would establish a link between the election and campaign finance reform in the United States. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ralph Nader
Nader received 2.7% of the vote. Why not include him in the info box? MetaTracker (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , 2.7% is a very small number. Normally we only include candidates who get over 5%. Also, he didn't win any Electoral College votes. If we included him, we would have to add countless other candidates to other election pages and the infoboxes would simply get too big. Giraffer (munch) 09:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is simply not true. In the article for the 1948 United States presidential election the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond is included in the inforbox despite winning only 2.4% of the popular vote, 0.3% less than Nader. There are several other US election articles that include 3rd candidates who won only single digit percentages of the popular vote. They're included, not because of the popular vote percentage they won (that's not how US elections are decided), but because of the impact their marginal percentages had on the outcome of the vote on the state level, and their historical significance in broader political alignments.
 * Nader should absolutely be included in the infobox for the 2000 election. Nader and the Green Party were not only reflective of a broader political realignment on the left, they also had a decisive impact on the outcome of the election. The 2000 election wasn't decided based on the popular vote, rather it hinged on the outcome in Florida, where the difference between Gore and Bush was less than 600 votes, and Ralph Nader had won 97,488 votes. Without the role Nader played in the election the outcome would have almost certainly been different.
 * The role and success of Nader's campaign also legitimized the Green Party and the role of 3rd parties in American presidential elections in general in a way that has significantly impacted subsequent elections. Most notably the 2016 election where both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party were seen as legitimate voting choices, each winning more votes in several states that was greater than the margin of victory between Clinton and Trump, potentially impacting the outcome of the election.


 * The role Nader played in this election was at least as significant and decisive as 3rd candidates included in articles for the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 elections, and to present Bush and Gore as the only significant figures in the race is both misleading and inaccurate. Citationsaurus (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I said normally. Strom Thurmond won 39 electoral votes (7% of the electoral college, or equivalent to Texas now) so obviously regardless of his popular vote he should be included. No candidate is included in any infobox who didn't receive 5% of the popular vote or one electoral college vote (excluding faithless electors), and with the exception of Thurmond, every infobox candidate got over 5%. Every election you mentioned meets this standard (5% or 1 ECV). Nader meets neither, and I believe he isn't sufficient for inclusion in the infobox. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 22:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Is there an article laying out the standards for election articles you could link me to? If 5% Popular Vote or <1 EV is just your own personal standard it's rather arbitrary as neither are reliable indicators of how significant a candidates role in an election was. By your standard the infobox for the 1960 United States presidential election should feature Robert Byrd who received 15 electoral votes from unpledged delegates elected by 3 different states, even though he wasn't running for President and had no significant presence during the election process. Perhaps he should be included in that article's infobox, but regardless, the current state of the article is inconsistent with your standard. Citationsaurus (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I must have missed that, and maybe he should be included. As for the standard, I can't find the original link, but recent RfCs at Talk:2020 United States presidential election have mentioned the 5% or 1 ECV standard, albeit for preliminary polling. (Examples: here here) I've dropped a note at the 2020 election talk asking for a link to the guideline. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 09:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The two people that responded couldn't give me a link, but they said it was either carrying 1 state or 5% of the electoral vote. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 08:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

New Hampshire
I attempted to add to the introduction that this was the last time that New Hampshire voted Republican, only to have my edit undone as "silly" and "unsourced". Many other presidential election pages (including 1992, 2004, 2008) mention state trends in their introductions without citations, so how is this any different? -Mad Mismagius (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinions can vary on whether it belongs anywhere in the article at all, but it certainly is of so little importance that it does not merit discussion in the lede. TJRC (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is not important enough to be mentioned in the introduction, then shouldn't similar mentions in other presidential election articles be removed? I was just trying to make the article consistent with what I've seen from other presidential election articles. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Consistency is rarely a good argument for article content; when it's offered it's usually as more of a justification or excuse than actual merit of the edit. Depending on context, it may or may not be appropriate in those other articles; and maybe it is something to be cleaned up there (or maybe not). But looking at the concrete example, here, it doesn't belong in the lede, and perhaps not anywhere.
 * I don't have a lot more to add here, so I'll let others have their say. If there's a consensus to add it somewhere (I really doubt there will be a consensus to have it in the lede), then you can re-add it. TJRC (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mad Mismagius. Thanks for bringing your concerns here. I recognised the "silly" from my own edit summary and have taken another look. I believe when I reverted you I was thinking that I was looking at the 2020 article. That is, I found it (exceedingly) silly to say "As of 2020, this is the last presidential election where New Hampshire voted for the Republican candidate", where "this" meant 2020's (the last) election. So it's not sooo silly after all, and I owe you an apology.
 * Still, though, all we have about this is the sentence at the end of a paragraph under National results that says, I still don't think it belongs in the lead as it's almost a non-sequitur, a fun fact that isn't a major aspect of the article below. And, in addition to that, it's not sourced down there in the article, either. I would still prefer that it not be in the lead.
 * That other articles aren't perfect is a known problem on Wikipedia; we can only improve the pages one at a time. Thanks for doing your part. I know it's hard to know what other editors like or don't like, will or will not accept. Following WP:BRD is not only a great way to learn; it's also a good way to make friends. Cheers, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"Won the disputed election"
The election should not be described as "disputed" in the lead. This gives the improper impression that the election is still disputed today, which it isn't, as Gore conceded and no one is still trying to re-litigate the election. If this election is to be described as "disputed" then we might as well describe the 2020 election as disputed also in its lead. I recommend we remove "dispusted" from the sentence. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, Basil, it isn't disputed now, but that election is famous for being disputed at the time. (Less famous now, because, well, you know.) The problem is the double meaning of the word; it could be then-disputed, or still-disputed. How would you (and others) feel about the use of "long-disputed"? It's not as long-disputed as the 2020 disaster, but I think it correctly (and more clearly) denotes the fact that, for weeks, we didn't have any idea who would become president. Some signal in the first paragraph (here, the second sentence) is good, because we talk in the 3rd and 4th graphs about the recounts and litigation, but the dispute was actually a major historical aspect of this election. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think any kind of qualifier to the word "election" in that sentence is necessary, because the purpose of that sentence in context of the paragraph is to lay out the clear facts of what ultimately happened, which was that Bush won. Maybe a little more could be added to the last sentence of that paragraph, something like "...and is considered one of the closest elections in U.S. history, with longstanding controversy surrounding the ultimate results of the election." Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd work for me, too. I don't know about the other editors, like those who were set on having "disputed" in there. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting messed up in lede
--2601:600:A37F:F111:211C:7BF0:3BA7:DEAA (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ordinal number
The first line reads the 2000 election "was the 54th quadrennial presidential election". It was not; it was the 53rd. Wikipedia's own page on table on its page United States Presidential Election confirms this, as does simple counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 1788, 1792, 1796 and 1800 were the first four. Each hundred years thereafter had 25, ending on the years 1900 and 2000. 4+25+25=54. Jeff in CA (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)