In 2000, the Florida delegates were prepared to vote for Bush?

[Lone_Wolf]

On Washington Journal this morning, a caller said that in 2000, the Florida delegates were told they had to vote for Bush regardless of the outcome of Florida's popular vote. The guest on the show, Thomas Schaller of the University of Maryland, confirmed this and said that they were prepared to exploit a technicality of the Constitution.

I never heard of this before, can someone explain to me, in more detail, what happened or the history behind it?

[joeybee12]

1. I'm not an expert, but technically none of the delegates from any of the

states are bound to vote for the candidate who won that state--they just always do.

In the case of Florida, the delegates would have been appointed by the state legislature--controlled by republicans--and the Repuke leadership there made it clear that regardless of the vote outcome, they were going to have their delegates vote for Bush. They were using it as a threat to make Gore pull back from the recount.

[liberalcapitalist]

2. the state legislature determines who the delegates are

The state legislature determines who the delegates are, and the delegates choose who to vote for. In 1960, for example, John F. Kennedy received 56% of the popular vote in Alabama, beating Richard Nixon's 42% and entitling him to the state's eleven Electoral votes. The people had spoken and a majority wanted Kennedy as their president, however, because of his support for civil rights, more than half of Alabama's Electors refused to vote for him! They disobeyed the will of the people and voted for the segregationist ticket headed by Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond.

In 2000, the Republican Florida state legislature had made up its mind that DESPITE any results of the recount, they were going to go with Bush. They can absolutely do this because the constitution does not give any real credence to the popular vote. In fact, one D.C. Gore delegate refused to vote at all in protest, and therefore, Gore has one fewer electoral vote than he should have.

[gonefishing]

3. We need to start working the crowd(s)

In this next ABB election we all need start spreading the word on stories that can stick.

1) His AWOL war record.
2) The WMD lie.
3) The Florida debacle ( the complete story)
4) The deficit $$$$ (What happened in the last 4 years)

Any others that will stick. I don't mind reading them over and over again. The more I hear the better equipped I am to do battle.

[cybildisobedience]

4. I heard that, too

I knew about it from the 2000 election in Florida, but I disagreed with the what the guest, an admitted pro-Democrat professor from Maryland, said about the possibility being practically nil that it would actually happen.
He said that there would be a great hue and cry and that the Repuke/Nazi Fla. legislators wouldn't get away with it.
I disagree it. I think they not only would get away with it, but that anyone who objected would be told to "get over it" -- and probably by some Democratic politicians, to boot.

[joeybee12]

5. Yup, the Repukes were ready to fight, and the Dems were ready to

back down!

[soup]

6. Remember being furious -

and shooting off several e-mails at the time - one of many times during that nightmare of a roller coaster ride - when Feeney called for the House to convene to intercede.

My take on it was it wasn't necessary. The initial call for *jr based on the what? 537? vote 'win' was enough to set the Florida electors for him. With the cases in the courts, wouldn't it make sense to let that play out?

The Republican legislature said it was afraid Florida wouldn't be a part of the electoral count on January 6th due to all the confusion, so they were just going to go ahead and settle it. Pretty sure the decision was based on the following rule of law-

----------------------
| 3 USC Ch. 1, Table of Contents |

Failure to make choice on prescribed day

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
http://quest.cjonline.com/electoral/law.shtml
----------------------

This was at a point when there was still hope through the courts decisions. It seemed to me that Feeney and gang were trying to nullify a possible court ruling by saying, 'we've already decided it's *bush'.

The responses I received were pats on the head and basically 'we're just doing our job, sit down, shut up and let us do it'.

Could the deck have been stacked any more precisely?

Here's an article that can explain it much better than I could:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/12/election.wrap/