Gore becomes POTUS in 2000

[manchesterman]

I watched this fascinating video last night which reminded me of events from 20 years ago which still reverberate through the world to this day.

So the alternative political scenario I want to explore here is: what would have happened if the Supreme Court has not interfered  in the federal election system which gives each state the right to determine its own procedures for elections?

Well firstly the recount would have continued , instead of being strangled at birth, and given that the official margin in votes was 537; but  the disputed "hanging chad" votes were from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties (all solidly Democrat counties), it seems almost a certainty that Gore would have won Florida - had democracy been allowed to take its natural course - and thus become the 43rd POTUS.

I'm not going to focus on domestic policy as they werent a million miles apart and it dosent impact the rest of the world directly. Instead I want to focus on issues such as:

• • Do the 9/11 terror attacks still happen a year later?

  
  
  • If they do, how would a Gore administration react?

  
  
  • Would the "war on terror" policy be enacted in such a forceful/direct way [targeting Al-Qaeda, OBL & regime change in Iraq and Libya?]

These issues may have had a massive impact on UK politics in the early 21st century.  Without being drawn into the Iraq War (or there even not being an Iraq war under Gore), would the knock-on effect be that Blair wins in 2005 by a similar majority to those he enjoyed in 1997 & 2001?  Given that the main criticism of the 3rd Blair government was support of Bush's Iraq war policy in combination with the "dodgy dossier" & Campbell behaving like Cummings mentor(!) I think it is highly possible.

Let's say Blair wins with a handsome majority in 2005 (down a couple of dozen or so from his 167 majority in 2001, as you would expect there to be some slippage after 2 victories, but still substantial) - so something like Lab 390, Con 190, LD 40

Then, as agreed, Blair hands over to Brown in 2007.  Assuming the global crash still happens in 2008 - but also assuming all other things at the time to be equal - then you could project that Brown would suffer a similar drop in MP numbers and the Tories would increase in similar numbers too.  This would leave us with a 2010 HoC looking something like:  Lab 300, Con 280, LD 40. The key thing here is that the Con-Lib coalition that was born in the real world dosent happen.  As Clegg's reason for supporting the Tories was always said to be "that the country needed a stable government due to the crash and the maths only worked with the Tories" he would presumably have had to apply the same logic in this scenario and we would have had a Lab-Lib coalition instead.

This would almost certainly result in:

A much shorter and shallower period of austerity, which would have assuaged some of the reasons cited for the brexit vote in 2016 [assuming it even still happened] "people seeing their standard of living eroded, no sign of hope on the horizon as austerity grinded on year after year,  the feeling that this generation would be less well off than their parents generation" [which hadnt happened in decades, if ever] which was somehow spun to be the fault of the EU... i dont think there is much doubt out there that if austerity hadnt happened, then brexit wouldnt have happened (at least not in the short-to-medium term future)

Therefore brexit remains as aspiration for some but dosent happen

Talk of IndyRef 2 (assuming IndyRef 1 went ahead and had a similar outcome) is highly unlikely as brexit is the main leverage that SNP have for calling for a new IndyRef vote so soon after the 1st one.

I conclude that this would leave the UK a happier, more united nation at ease with itself, its constituent parts intact (for now) and its economic stability secured (for now). Trust the bloody yanks to find a way to ruin it!

That's my take on it at least.  I'm sure many of you will have a very different take on how our future would pan out! But overall, what difference would a Gore win have made for USA and the world?  Presumably Bush dosent stand in 2004 so who does?  And considering 4 straight Democrat wins is unlikely in probability terms, who would be the likely POTUS in 2004 for the Republicans?  And what does America do about it's bizarre voting system so we never have a "hanging chads" situation again?  Maybe universal mail-in ballots is the answer after all 

[Devil Wincarnate]

9/11 would still happen, and Gore would probably react in the same way.  After all, under Clinton and Gore we saw the first Al Qaeda attacks in Africa on US targets, and US airstrikes on Sudan and Afghanistan.  And the USS Cole attack.  Then in 2002 you get the Bali bombings, which were intended as "retaliation" for Australia supporting the liberation of East Timor. 

[Merseymike]

An international issue which would have been led differently is climate change and the environment

[Devil Wincarnate]

Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT manchesterman said:

I watched this fascinating video last night which reminded me of events from 20 years ago which still reverberate through the world to this day.

Then, as agreed, Blair hands over to Brown in 2007.  Assuming the global crash still happens in 2008 - but also assuming all other things at the time to be equal - then you could project that Brown would suffer a similar drop in MP numbers and the Tories would increase in similar numbers too.  This would leave us with a 2010 HoC looking something like:  Lab 300, Con 280, LD 40. The key thing here is that the Con-Lib coalition that was born in the real world dosent happen.  As Clegg's reason for supporting the Tories was always said to be "that the country needed a stable government due to the crash and the maths only worked with the Tories" he would presumably have had to apply the same logic in this scenario and we would have had a Lab-Lib coalition instead.

For there to be any economic changes, you'd need to somehow butterfly away the massive economic boom of the Nineties and Noughties.  The seeds of the crash are entirely intertwined with the boom- the risky behaviours were all predicated on the sense that the good times were not going away.  It's a paradox, of course.  Even if Gore were to for some reason bring back Glass-Steagall (whose repeal was also on his and Clinton's watch), the insane lending of the time was still always going to lead to a crash with most of the same outcomes.  

[nodealbrexiteer]

I'm not sure if things would have been too different if Gore had done it compared to how things might have been if Hillary had been elected in 2016.

OFF TOPIC(maybe slightly related):Have we done what if brown had gone for a 2007 General Election?

[timrollpickering]

Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT manchesterman said:

So the alternative political scenario I want to explore here is: what would have happened if the Supreme Court has not interfered  in the federal election system which gives each state the right to determine its own procedures for elections?

Well firstly the recount would have continued , instead of being strangled at birth, and given that the official margin in votes was 537; but the disputed "hanging chad" votes were from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties (all solidly Democrat counties), it seems almost a certainty that Gore would have won Florida - had democracy been allowed to take its natural course - and thus become the 43rd POTUS.

Recounts afterwards found that the standards Gore was demanding would still have led to a Bush victory. There was existing federal election law that already "interfered" in how states run elections including setting deadlines for states to sort out the results.

And whilst one can argue the case details back and forth to be blunt almost all roads would have ended with one side convinced that a Supreme Court had helped the other "steal" the election. Curiously there aren't many keyboard warriors holding up the Florida Supreme Court and its ruling as a paragon of virtue.

Perhaps a better what if would involve an Al Gore who could fight a decent campaign. Perhaps one who could carry his home state. Or maybe one who didn't adopt such a platform that drove West Virginia, a state that voted for Carter's re-election and then Dukakis, into becoming one of the reddest of all states.

[Richard Allen]

Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT manchesterman said:

So the alternative political scenario I want to explore here is: what would have happened if the Supreme Court has not interfered  in the federal election system which gives each state the right to determine its own procedures for elections?

The right of states to determine their own election procedures is not absolute, most notably they cannot violate the US Constitution. In this case a 7-2 majority of the US Supreme Court concluded that the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment

[manchesterman]

Aug 23, 2020 20:25:08 GMT Richard Allen said:

Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT manchesterman said:

So the alternative political scenario I want to explore here is: what would have happened if the Supreme Court has not interfered  in the federal election system which gives each state the right to determine its own procedures for elections?

The right of states to determine their own election procedures is not absolute, most notably they cannot violate the US Constitution. In this case a 7-2 majority of the US Supreme Court concluded that the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment

I;m not disputing that Richard. Indeed it explains that in the video. However they didnt have to intervene, it was a political decision to choose to do so. so the scenario is still plausible

[manchesterman]

Aug 23, 2020 19:42:38 GMT timrollpickering said:

Aug 22, 2020 20:27:46 GMT manchesterman said:

So the alternative political scenario I want to explore here is: what would have happened if the Supreme Court has not interfered  in the federal election system which gives each state the right to determine its own procedures for elections?

Well firstly the recount would have continued , instead of being strangled at birth, and given that the official margin in votes was 537; but the disputed "hanging chad" votes were from Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties (all solidly Democrat counties), it seems almost a certainty that Gore would have won Florida - had democracy been allowed to take its natural course - and thus become the 43rd POTUS.

Recounts afterwards found that the standards Gore was demanding would still have led to a Bush victory. There was existing federal election law that already "interfered" in how states run elections including setting deadlines for states to sort out the results.

And whilst one can argue the case details back and forth to be blunt almost all roads would have ended with one side convinced that a Supreme Court had helped the other "steal" the election. Curiously there aren't many keyboard warriors holding up the Florida Supreme Court and its ruling as a paragon of virtue.

Perhaps a better what if would involve an Al Gore who could fight a decent campaign. Perhaps one who could carry his home state. Or maybe one who didn't adopt such a platform that drove West Virginia, a state that voted for Carter's re-election and then Dukakis, into becoming oe of the reddest of all states.

Those are different "what ifs" which you are welcome to create.

I wasnt intending on getting into the constitutional nicieties in this thread. My point was - if all of the votes had been counted (regardless of said legal niceties) Gore would have won. if you dont believe me then maybe you will believe the Republican guy at the end of the video who conceded that to be so.  As this was 15 years after the fact there was no reason for him to not be honest about this, as the past cannot be changed. So "stealing the election " in the strictly legal sense I accept didnt happen, it was however stolen in the moral sense.

[Richard Allen]

Aug 23, 2020 22:25:38 GMT manchesterman said:

Aug 23, 2020 20:25:08 GMT Richard Allen said:

The right of states to determine their own election procedures is not absolute, most notably they cannot violate the US Constitution. In this case a 7-2 majority of the US Supreme Court concluded that the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment

I;m not disputing that Richard. Indeed it explains that in the video. However they didnt have to intervene, it was a political decision to choose to do so. so the scenario is still plausible

Not intervening would have been just as much a political decision as the one to intervene. I suppose they could have declined to hear the case but given the importance that would have been an abrogation of duty.

At the heart of the matter was that Gore didn't want an honest recount, he wanted a vote fishing exercise in heavily Democratic counties. All too late in the day the Florida Supreme Court ordered a full recount, if that had been sought in mid November rather than early December it might have been possible for a legally satisfactory recount. In any event we now know that even had such a recount taken place Bush would likely still have won.

Of course if Democratic controlled Palm Beach County had used a sensible ballot lay out Gore would almost certainly have won.

[manchesterman]

Totally agree that Gore was playing politics with it too and that the Palm Beach fiasco had devastating consequences. Do we know btw if they still use that same voting system or were lessons learned and acted upon?.

There should have simply been a full recount of all 6m votes in Florida, and if that took a week then so be it.

[johng]

Aug 23, 2020 23:15:43 GMT manchesterman said:

Totally agree that Gore was playing politics with it too and that the Palm Beach fiasco had devastating consequences. Do we know btw if they still use that same voting system or were lessons learned and acted upon?.

There should have simply been a full recount of all 6m votes in Florida, and if that took a week then so be it.

According to this campaign group, the last hole punch system was used in 2014. Amazing that they lasted so long given to controversy over the election in 2000.

verifiedvoting.org/votingequipment/#

[yellowperil]

Aug 24, 2020 0:19:21 GMT johng said:

Aug 23, 2020 23:15:43 GMT manchesterman said:

Totally agree that Gore was playing politics with it too and that the Palm Beach fiasco had devastating consequences. Do we know btw if they still use that same voting system or were lessons learned and acted upon?.

There should have simply been a full recount of all 6m votes in Florida, and if that took a week then so be it.

According to this campaign group, the last hole punch system was used in 2014. Amazing that they lasted so long given to controversy over the election in 2000.

verifiedvoting.org/votingequipment/#

very interesting, and even more of a mess than I had realised. Given the muddle, actually I'm quite surprised that hole punch systems have cpmpletely gone everywhere, if that is true.

[The Bishop]

I think there is a good chance a war in Iraq would still have happened with POTUS Gore. However, he wouldn't have surrounded himself with neocon nutters (Richard Perle FFS!!) and almost certainly wouldn't have been so shamelessly contemptuous of the UN and world opinion when pursuing his aims.

This would definitely have helped PM Blair, though he would still have faced significant opposition in both party and country. The real question, though, is whether Gore would have handled the aftermath of a military victory significantly better. If not, the wider fallout might ultimately have been much the same.