Living in ignorance, or in denial, about the past is the first step on the pathway to tyranny.
-- David W. Moore [in response to Ari F's "get over it" line]
Of course, to many of us, Gore is unique. Because we don't think he really lost in 2000. The whole Bush presidency was conceived in the original political sin of the stolen 2000 election. And hasn't it turned out well? But that's another story.
-- TPM
One of the more interesting books on the 2000 elections has an inflammatory title but a different twist on things -- How to Steal an Election by David W. Moore. Moore is a pollster, one who had an insider view -- being at the side of one of the network election teams since he was researching a book on polling -- on the (wrong-minded) call by FOX that Bush won Florida.
Bush's cousin was on the election team and the call was right after "Jebbie says we go it!" John Ellis dubiously was talking to his cousins throughout Election Day, a clear conflict of interest. The call was not backed up by the data -- the networks already called the state prematurely (for Gore) earlier and were warned that there was a margin of error, which the returns then did not surpass. FOX's call was followed by two other networks, one against the opinion of the resident polling experts, but not by AP or the very voting service [VNS] often blamed. Circumstantial evidence suggests that a "bandwagon" effect was a major factor -- underlined by the fact that experts at a majority of the networks/companies at issue were against an announcement. And, shortly afterwards, the doubtful nature of the data only increased.*
The book suggests it is a "historical fact" that the election was stolen, just like LBJ stole an election to begin his path to the presidency, and various other elections were stolen in our history. It covers some of the familiar ground, including the wrongful (non-felon) disenfranchisement issue. But, notes that the press had an important role here. If they did not call the election wrongly, it would be very well likely that Gore would not have been seen as a "sore loser" -- as they should have done, the reports would have been that it was "too close to call," and he would not have conceded prematurely. And, even after they did make that right call, the press meme often continued to be just that -- Gore actually lost and is a sore loser. Press commentary often went that way. It necessarily influenced strategy on both sides.
And, Moore notes that various legal experts suggest that this also affected court rulings, including the one or two essential votes on the Supreme Court. (One might add that more reporting on the true confusion in voting procedures in Florida might have clued O'Connor in that it wasn't so obvious how to vote, as she sarcastically implied during oral argument.) This is but an extreme example of a common instance -- public opinion, including that expressed in the media, influences judges. Judges are human. They are influenced by more than the bare record, even if it might be seen as inappropriate to do so. This is both good and bad. Sometimes such "social facts" are really necessary to determine the correct outcome. Other times, they might skewer the results.
It will happen. Just something to keep an eye on, while suggesting the responsibilities of various forces that might have such influence. This includes those that might have a constitutional right to do things badly, but a responsibility to do them right.
---
* Jack Shafer, of Slate, came into the picture as well. He did not think too much of the criticism of Ellis' announcement, since other networks made the same call. This is misleading. Apparently, his tendency toward misleading snarkiness was present back then too.
As noted, one set of "seers" (his term) didn't want to make the call (ABC), but the higher-ups overruled them. NBC people were talking to a VNS rep who warned them that a margin of error still existed, FOX called it, and suddenly NBC did too. CBS followed, again shortly after the head guy there told Moore that the data was iffy. AP and VNS did not join in, turning out to be right in their caution.