September 9, 2018

Here are the facts about the 2000 election

I find it sad that I have to keep doing this, but as long as I have to, I will.

“Dear Mr. Greenfield,
I beg you not to run. Remember how things turned out when Ralph Nader ran and we were left with George Bush, war criminal ……PLEASE!!!”

Here are the facts about the 2000 election.

1. 308,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. Only 24,000 voted for Nader. Why do you blame Nader, and not Bush, when Bush pulled 12 times as many Democrats away from Gore as Nader? And more importantly, why don’t you blame the Democrats themselves for whatever choice they made? Or Gore? How did he manage to convince 308,000 Democrats to vote for Bush?

2. Gore won Florida. Florida’s electoral votes were awarded to Bush by the Supreme Court. Your statement shows you believe that Gore got fewer votes than Bush in Florida, and that enough Nader voters may have gone with Gore but for Nader’s presence on the ballot. But that’s not what happened. Gore got more votes than Bush. Counting the votes was stopped by the Florida Secretary of State. The Republicans on the Supreme Court then ruled that since the date by which counting should be completed had passed, that completion of the counting was denied on the grounds that stopping by the date was legally superior to counting all the votes.

3. The Senate then had to certify the election as finished, and the results accepted. Under Senate rules, it would have taken just one Democratic Party Senator to demand the counting be completed as part of the certification process. Every single member of the House Black Caucus spoke on the floor of the Senate demanding that that be done. 100% of the Democratic Party Senators, including Hillary Clinton in her first act as a Senator, denied their request. Al Gore, as presiding officer of the Senate, repeatedly gaveled down all the House Black Caucus members as out of order. Here is the footage from the floor of the Senate of this happening. Just one Democrat was all that was needed to complete the count, and make Gore the President. None would do it.

There was a bloodless coup in 2000. It followed the following sequence. 1. Florida interrupted vote counting. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of not completing the counting. 3. The Democrats in the Senate agreed to go along with that. Adding insult to injury, in the 18 years since it happened, including the two years when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate majority during the first two years of the Obama Presidency, no Democrat has submitted legislation to formally establish that vote counting must always be completed, or that the Electoral College be abolished. The latter would have been a tough haul, given that it would need 3/5ths state approval, but it would have prevented Trump from becoming President. The former would have been do-able by simple vote, and would have at least created an iron-clad guarantee in this so-called democracy that all votes cast get counted, and that a Bush v. Gore-precedented Supreme Court decision could never happen in the future. But the Democrats would not provide us with even that, and still will not.

Nader played no role. Nader voters played no role. It’s important that you understand what happened — especially the role the Democrats played in formally closing the question when it was in their power to get the votes counted, and their refusal to pass a law in 2009 and 2010, when the power to do so was fully theirs, that would formally make vote count completion an iron-clad guarantee. Otherwise, it can happen again, and you’ll go along with it again. And it even seems you are unaware of, or unconcerned about the fact that if Bush was a war criminal, he was supported in that by a majority of Democrats. It’s not like he secretly ordered the invasion, and Democrats were horrified, but powerless to end it. Bush was granted legislation pre-authorizing the invasion, and most Senate Democrats — again, including Hillary Clinton, who made quite the impassioned speech in favor of granting Bush that authorization — voted yes on it.

Aside from all that, I can have no effect on votes for Delgado. Our platforms have nothing in common. It’s not like my platform is just a more progressive version of his, so one can wonder if some voters who would vote for Delgado, but for my presence on the ballot, are being distracted by me. In fact, Delgado has much in common with Faso, such as his support for ICE, and his refusal to endorse Tulsi Gabbard’s OFF Act, banking reform, and bringing our non-defensive international wars to a close. I have nothing in common with either of them.

You’re sending your message to the wrong candidate. Delgado will be siphoning votes from me. I know this because of the number of people who write to me telling me they support by platform but feel compelled to vote for Delgado. There is literally nobody sending letters to Delgado telling him they support most of his platform, but feel compelled to vote for me because I’m better on a few issues that matter to them, so would he please drop out, so the better candidate can win. Not one. You should send a letter to Delgado telling him that due to his lack of any prior political or public service experience, and lack of residential history here, that his moving here has created a substantial diversion of voters from an experienced legislator who resides here, and has a platform that reflects the district’s best interests.

Thank you for your interest. I hope you’ll give all of this some consideration, because it is 100% factually true. We must have room among the 435 seats in Congress for just one member who cares about that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *