John Fortier marks the 25th anniversary of Bush v. Gore, where Florida’s 6M ballots hinged on a 500-vote margin after five weeks of recounts amid "hanging Chad" chaos and inconsistent counting. Gore and Bush both conceded—Gore prioritizing unity, Bush pledging to bridge divides—yet reforms followed to modernize voting systems. Fortier contrasts this with today’s partisan gridlock, where Trump’s election challenges and lingering Democratic doubts over the Court’s intervention risk eroding trust in democratic processes. [Automatically generated summary]
Back at our table this morning is John Fortier, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, here to talk about the 25th anniversary of the Bush versus Gore overtime election.
Well, we had an incredible election, which was extremely close.
And, you know, our presidential elections are not just about the popular vote, they're also about the Electoral College.
So it was a close election, but one that came down to one state, Florida.
And that state was very closely divided.
Millions of votes have been cast, and it came down to a few hundred votes.
We ended up having a long and contested recount, really lasting five weeks until just about this time, 25 years ago, when the Supreme Court stepped in and for a variety of reasons said the counting we're doing is over and the very narrow margin that George Bush had in Florida was the final result, ultimately leading to Bush becoming the president.
Well, for those who remember, it varied a little bit.
It went up and down because we had some different counts, but the final vote tally was just 500 votes or so out of 6 million cast in Florida and over 100 million cast in the United States.
So it was very, very close.
And all sorts of questions we had about how we count and what was going on could have affected that margin.
Now, I want to invite our viewers to join in on this conversation with any questions or comments you may have about that time.
Republicans, your line is 202-748-8001.
Democrats, your line is 202-748-8000.
Independents, your line is 202-748-8002.
John, something that struck me in preparing for this conversation was kind of how after the Supreme Court decision came down, both candidates reacted to the decision.
I want you to take a listen to both how then Senator George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore talked about the results.
unidentified
I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside.
And may God bless his stewardship of this country.
Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road.
Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen.
Yet it came and now it has ended.
Resolved as it must be resolved through the honored institutions of our democracy.
Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, not under man, but under God and law.
That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties.
I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken.
Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it.
I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.
And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.
So there was Governor George W. Bush praising Al Gore, then Vice President, after that Supreme Court decision, after Al Gore's remarks.
I wonder if you can say, John, or whether you believe, just given the current state of politics, how divided and partisan politics is right now, whether that type of language, that type of concession speech could happen right now in these politics.
Well, the election result was close, and there were some calls for recounts in various counties.
And back then, we had different kinds of technology than we have today.
One of the good things we've done is to get rid of some of that technology.
We still have some issues with our current technology, but back then there was a system that you could use where you would actually have to take a pin and punch through a little piece of paper to dedicate your choice.
Now, one of the problems with that was that sometimes people didn't punch all the way through, or the Chad was hanging there, or there was another term, a pregnant Chad, that Americans learned all about the very, you know, all the details of this election voting system.
And when we recounted and this close election where every vote counted, there were different standards perhaps in different counties.
How do we count this vote that wasn't completely cast?
And so much of the controversy had to do with, well, what is the actual count in some of these counties?
And ultimately, it's still a close win for President Bush.
But one of the things that we did after the fact was to get rid of that technology and try to move to better counting standards so that we don't have those problems today.
unidentified
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up Sunday morning, Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute discusses a new poll examining the makeup of the current Republican coalition.
And then Dan Glickman, Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Fellow and former Agriculture Secretary, talks about issues impacting U.S. farmers, including tariffs and Trump administration farm assistance policies.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at cspan.org.
Book TV.
Every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.