I couldn't let your comment on the legitimacy (or illegitimacy, as you have so eloquently put it) of Governor Bush's election in 2000 to go without reply, or challenge.
The following, therefore, may well surprise you (and some other members of the wider HC community).
In 1960, Senator Kennedy won the US Presidency by a popular margin of 118,000 votes (ie: 34,226,731 to Vice President Nixon's 34,108,157). More importantly, however, Senator Kennedy resoundely carried the Electoral College vote, winning 303 votes to VP Nixon's 219 votes. A further 15 EC votes went the way of Harry Byrd (and Strom Thurmond).
Why is this of any interest?
Kennedy won, but Nixon should have been the victor.
Why?
"The return of Catholic voters to the democratic party helped Kennedy, as did substantial vote fraud in Texas and Illinois. With Lyndon Johmnson as his running-mate, Kennedy barely squeaked out a victory; without Johnson, he surely would have lost. Choosing not to contest the fraudulent returns, an uncharacteristically magnanimous Nixon allowed Kennedy to become the first Catholic president and the youngest ever elected to the office". - source: "To the best of my ability - the American presidents", by James M McPherson (general editor), The Society of American Historians; published Dorling Kindersley, c2000.
In Illinois, Kennedy received 49.98% of the "flawed" popular vote (ie: 2,377,846 votes), but more importantly, won 27 Electoral College votes, to Nixon's nil. Nixon won 49.80% of the popular vote (ie: 2,368,988 votes), a final margin of less than 9,000 votes.
In Texas, Kennedy received 1,167,567 votes (ie: 50.52%), and again, more importantly, the 25 Electoral College votes. Nixon received nil Electoral College votes, despite securing 48.52% of the popular vote (ie: 1,121,310 votes), a final margin of less than 50,000 votes.
If both results had been contested, and reversed (as would have likely occurred at the time), both Illinois and Texas would have been awarded to Nixon, resulting in Nixon receiving 271 Electoral College votes (previously, 219), to Kennedy's 251 Electoral College votes (previously, 303).
The results were not contested, and no-one has subsequently quesioned the illegitimacy of the reign of Camelot.
Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912 was not questioned (nor the pragmatism of his presidency), despite receiving only 41.84% of the popular vote, in a 3-way contest with Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft. The results of this election were: 1) Woodrow Wilson (Democrat), elected with 6,293,152 votes (ie: 41.84%), and 435 Electoral College votes (ie: 81.9%); 2) Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive), lost with 4,119,207 votes (ie: 27.39%), and 88 EC votes (ie: 16.6%); 3) William Taft (Republican), lost with 3,486,333 votes (ie: 23.18%), and 8 EC votes (ie: 1.5%); 4) Eugene Debs (Socialist), lost with 900,369 votes (ie: 5.99%), and nil EC votes; and 5) Eugene Chafin (Prohibition), lost with 207,972 votes (ie: 1.38%), and nil EC votes.
Another Democrat elected to the White House (this time in 1948) also drew a very close final result, but was neither challenged, nor overturned, despite not winning thw popular vote: 1) Harry Truman (Democrat) 24,179,345 (49.55%) votes 303 (57.1%) EC votes; 2) Thomas Dewey (Republican) 21,991,291 (45.07%) 189 (35.6%); 3) Strom Thurmond (State's Rights) 1,176,125 (2.41%) 39 (7.3%); and 4) Henry Wallace (Progressive) 1,157,326 (2.37%) 0 (0%).
Similarly, Nixon's own election in 1968 resulted in a majority of Electoral College votes, but a minority of the popular vote: 1) Richard Nixon (Republican) 31,785,480 (43.42%) votes and 301 EC votes (ie: 55.9%); 2) Hubert Humphrey (Democrat) 31,275,166 (42.72%) votes and 191 EC votes 35.5%); and 3) George Wallace (American Independent) 9,906,473 (13.53%) votes, and 46 EC votes (8.6%).
But even more telling than this was Clinton's own election in 1992: 1) William Clinton (Democrat) 44,909,806 votes (ie: 43.01%) 370 EC votes (ie: 68.8%); 2) George Bush (Republican) 39,104,550 votes (ie: 37.45%) 168 EC votes (ie: 31.2%); 3) Ross Perot (Independent) 19,742,240 votes (ie: 18.91%), and nil EC votes; and 4) Andre Marrau (Libertarian) 291,631 votes (ie: 0.28%), and nil EC votes.
So, over the course of the last 100 years, no less than 6 Presidents have been elected with less than a majority of the popular vote.
Again, their names, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S Truman, John F Kennedy, Richard Milhous Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton, and in 2000, George W Bush Jr.
Of this number, 3 were great Presidents (Kennedy, Wilson and Truman), 2 were functional (Clinton and Nixon) and one (Bush Jr) remains a work in progress.
Also, of this number, 4 of the resulting beneficiaries were Democrat (Wilson, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton), and 2 were Republican (Nixon and Bush Jr).
Again, of this number: 1) Woodrow Wilson served during WW1, and was re-elected at the time of the USA entering into the fray in 1917; 2) Truman was elected in 1948, just in time for the Korean police action of 1950; 3) Kennedy brought us the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam; 4) Nixon continued with Vietnam (and the high bombing campaign of 1969), but also oversaw the gradual withdraw of American forces; 5) Clinton oversaw, well, Somalia (and then, following his re-election in 1996, the targeted strikes against Kosovo, Somalia and al Qeida in Afghanistan; and 6) Bush has seen the coalition actions in Afghanistan and the aftermath of 9-11.
So, who on balance were the more war mongering amongst all concerned out there?
On a very raw balancing of the equation, the Democrats (Wilson, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton) win hands-down over the Republicans (Nixon in withdrawal, and Bush in the beginning).
Those, therefore, who wish to keep attacking the legitimacy (or otherwise) of President Bush's election would be well reminded to first brush up on their history, and then allow for future history to be written the way in which it should be - by tomorrow's historians.
