You introduced the Australian context last night when you posted: "In Australia we count and recount votes until we get the true result".
Now you are saying that "(i)t's not a matter of comparing electoral systems - a waste of time".
If that's the case, then why did you introduce it in the first place?
You and I are never going to agree on this, or anything else.
Your convictions regarding Bush ("simple minded" - your words) are such that a rational debate between us is unlikely on this, or any related, subject.
I have argued over the last 24 hours that the flaws inherent in the USA system did not come to light for the first time in 2000, and that the political barbarism of 2000 was not the first occasion on which political treachory had occurred (just think back to 1960 and Kennedy).
Last night, you also claimed that the USA Supreme Court had put George Bush into power and that it had voted in a party political manner to do so. You have accused the Republicans of acting in this way whilst being blind-sided to the fact that the Democrats voted the same way (ie: along party political lines) at both the Federal and State levels. So, what else is new, except for the fact that instead of "a simple minded President", the USA would have been led by the claimed inventor of the Information Super Highway and by a VP who was just as simple minded, in the final analysis.
Even if the results had been reversed, Al Gore would still have been a minority elected (ie: with <50% of the votes cast in favour), thus joining the likes of Clinton (2x), Kennedy and Truman. 4 of the 6 minority elected Presidents since WW2 have been Democrats. If Gore had been elected, then that would have made 5 out of 6.
My posts overnight also demonstrated that the USA Supreme Court did not elect George Bush - the Electoral College did.
Those same posts also demonstrated that, in 20 States, the Electoral College delegates were obliged to vote in the same way as their States had been certified. This was why the Democrats sought to persuade the variable States (including Florida delegates) to change their minds at the Electoral College vote. Three votes changing hands was what was needed, but none eventuated.
The meaning of this?
Study your history, and research the contexts You have claimed that Gore won the popular vote and, therefore, that the Democrats were nobbled at the post.
Maybe. Maybe, not. On this, history will be the final determinant.
But where history will not deviate from is the fact that the Democrats in 2000 lost the election that was their's for the taking, and had presided over a bubble-like economy, the likes of which we are still recovering from, and much of what we have seen occur in the intervening years would still have occurred.
