Mike Forster - Election 2000 Fantasy

Last Updated 7 December 2000

Here's a fantasy of what might have been.

July 20, 2001: From the perspective of the first six months of the 2001 Congress and administration, the achievements and cooperation in Washington are nothing short of remarkable. The basis for this progress may have been set by the following conversation between the two Presidential candidates, and the subsequent actions by both campaigns.

November 9, 2000: Two days after the general election. A phone conversation between the two major party presidential candidates.

Democratic Candidate, Vice-President Al Gore: Weren’t the media inaccurate last night? Especially regarding Florida — first me, then neither of us, then you, then neither of us again.

Republican Candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush: Yes — next time, the media will have to manage themselves much better, or their credibility will never be the same.

Gore: You know, George, we believe there were serious problems in some counties in Florida, where thousands of punched-card ballots have been left out of the count. We are going to have to ask for manual counts of the ballots that the punched-card counting machines discarded as uncountable. This will include at least one county where Republicans tend to win.

Bush: I agree, Al, that all votes should be counted as fully and fairly as possible. We don’t understand how the two statewide machine counts — the original and the mandated recount - could differ by at least 1400 votes. Even CNN calls machine counting of punch-card ballots to be "notorious" for inaccuracy. Florida law clearly allows for requests for manual recounts within the next couple of days — we won’t interfere with those manual recounts by suing to prevent them. Why, in our great state of Texas, we passed and I signed a law that confirms that manual recounts are the best way to resolve election questions.

Gore: Do you believe that other counties need to be manually recounted as well?

Bush: It appears that the machine counts in the rest of the state are accurate enough, because they don’t involve punched-card ballots, so we won’t sue for manual recounts in other counties. The voters’ equal protection is already handled by the higher accuracy of the machine counts in those counties.

Gore: It also appears to us that Florida law conflicts with itself — in large counties, a manual count or recount can likely not be completed within a 7-day time limit.

Bush: We concur that a full and fair count is most important. The decision of resolving such inconsistencies in Florida’s law rests with the discretion of Florida’s Secretary of State, but we’ll make it known that we believe that the interests of the nation, and therefore of the Republican Party, are best served by such recounts. Also, I’d like to say that we trust the good people who devote their time to manual recounts — we won’t be accusing them of "mischief". However, the recounts should be sensible — only those where the intent of the voter is very clear.

Gore: I agree that clear voter intent is most important. The decision of how to determine voter intent resides with each county’s canvassing board, but we Democrats will not confuse the issue by suing in court to include, say, dimpled chads and so on.

Bush: We have discovered that some overseas absentee ballots may not be postmarked, because in some cases a postmark is not required.

Gore: In line with counting all votes as fully and fairly as possible, we favor counting all ballots that appear to have met the mailing and receipt deadlines. Again, the decision should be made by Florida officials — but we won’t be suing to exclude any ballots on such possible technicalities.

Bush: We have heard that many voters in Palm Beach were confused by the "butterfly" ballot. That is unfortunate, but it cannot be fixed for this election.

Gore: We concur; we won’t be suing to attempt to remedy that situation this time. However, the confusion about the "butterfly" ballot arrangement and the inaccuracy of punch-card ballots demands that our nation make major improvements in the entire election process before the next election. Our citizens and our nation will benefit by clearer ballots, voting mechanisms, and follow-up procedures — hopefully before the next local elections, and not waiting for 2004.

Bush: Yes, and we should make sure that our own parties lead the nationwide effort to achieve such election improvements as quickly as possible.

Gore: Well, George, with our concurrence not to put impediments into the process, we should know within 2 weeks which of us will be moving into the White House.

Bush: Yes … and the nation can be comfortable that the will of the people will have been expressed and received as accurately as possible.

Analysis: Both candidates and their campaign staffs followed through on the commitments made during this conversation, enlightening our citizens and the world in the process. On Friday, November 18, the manual recounts were complete, and the Presidential election was settled. More importantly, both candidates, by their words and actions, became prime examples of our nation’s commitment that the process — our Constitution and fair election process — is far more important than who gets elected.

On January 20, 2001, the new President took office. Because of the exemplary statesmanship demonstrated by both Presidential candidates, the legitimacy of the new President was unquestioned, both in Washington and throughout the population. A new spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship have marked these early months of the new administration and Congressional session. This has been especially important for a Congress that is so equally split in both houses.

However, the nation was so impressed with both candidates’ handling of this potentially divisive situation that even the runner-up looks forward to a bright political future (perhaps even challenging for the Presidency again in 2004).

It could have been much worse. Rather than enlightened, complete, and informative discussions by both sides, both sides could have lapsed into highly partisan angry rhetoric and posturing. Both sides could have presented only those incomplete, limited arguments that helped their own candidate’s chances, saying "whatever it would take to get their man elected". Fortunately for our Republic, this worst-case scenario did not happen.