seeing as this deals with the last presidential election it is in the old news forum.

I've been wondering this for a while. if bush and the republicons were so absolutly positive that gore would lose a recount why did they insist that the supreme court overturn the florida SC descision to allw it? why didn't they simply say "ok gore, make a fool out of yourself. recount your ballots, we'll win anyway"?

this would have made the election appear much more legitimate, where as with the way the did it, it seems that he was appointed rather than elected. to me this is the most suspicious thing of the whole election, why stop it if you would win anyway?

topic(s) of debate
why did they insist on stopping the recounts despite being positive they would win? and does this indicate al gore may have actually won had they been allowed to continue? were they afraid they might have gotten caught rigging the election?

I would appreciate opinions from all sides, on any (or better all) of the questions.

topic(s) of debate
why did they insist on stopping the recounts despite being positive they would win? and does this indicate al gore may have actually won had they been allowed to continue? were they afraid they might have gotten caught rigging the election?

I would appreciate opinions from all sides, on any (or better all) of the questions. [/QUOTE]
The Bush team was never certain they would win the recount. Later recounts, by the media, showed the winner varied depending on the standards qualifying a vote and the precincts recounted. Most of the possible results gave Bush a narrow victory.

The 5-4 vote, in which the 5 members who normally oppose federal intervention in the actions of the states approved federal intervention, while the 4 members who usually are more likely to impose the federal government on the state opposed federal intervention, showed the partisan nature of what is supposed to be our least partisan branch of government. The only branch of government that lost respect in my eyes was the judicial system. Gore and Bush did what they were supposed to do.

The recount was a fraud on the democrats side, if you looked at all the recounts, you'd've noticed that the counts for Al gore just went up and up and up, and not 1 extra vote went up for bush.

Typical Democrats, trying to cheat the system to get their way.

And all I have to say is, even if it was proven Bush "stole" the election, people today would be saying "get over it!" because they're perfectly happy with Bush as their president today .

I watched CNN all day every day during the election process. The Bush campaign tried to stop the counts because of a couple reasons:

1. They had passed the state's own set deadline to count the votes. The Gore campaign was trying to use the "one person, one vote" thing to try and get the state supreme court and the US supreme court to completely discount Florida's own state laws.

2. The votes had been counted a total of three times. The only ballots that were left were the ones that had two punched holes, no punched holes, two hanging chads, etc... There is no way you can determine the intent of the voter in that case. Yet, the Gore campaign tried to convince everyone you can determine a voter's intent on a ballot with two fully punched holes. I'm sure Miss Cleo would've been happy to help out with that...

Now, I want you to ask yourself, would the Gore campaign have kept insisting on a third count if the second count put Gore in the lead?