The Unfinished Election of 2000

The immediate post-election debacle of 2000, eventually concluded by the Supreme Court's questionable intervention, is a fascinating story, and it is refreshing to hear it worked through by historians, constitutional scholars, and legal scholars, instead of the chattering masses of spin-doctors and partisan commentators. These essays cover, in order, the relationship of the 2000 election to previous presidential contests (especially the re-aligning victory of William McKinley in 1896); the nature of the Republican and Democrat coalitions; the checkered history of voter enfranchisement in the US and the rise of the "one-man, one vote" principle; a useful account of Florida and federal electoral law and the arguments leading up to the Supreme Court's final decision; an analysis of how the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment has been used in the past to increase enfranchisement, and how it was used in this case for exactly the opposite ends; and a history of the electoral college and analysis of possible alternatives for future presidential elections. The book ends with a wonderfully catty summation essay by Stephen Holmes, who argues that we should have seen this one coming, that nothing will change, that George Bush is a nitwit, and that maybe we can finally rid ourselves of the notion that the Supreme Court is a viable tool for socially progressive action. The writing is vivid, and the story that the writers tell is compelling. And occasionally these academics engage in some lovely flights of ascerbic wit, as when Rakove admits to the attractions of "the existentially hypnotic quality of C-Span telecasts of the vote recount", or when Stephen Holmes writes that "The culmination of the justices' unaccountable conceit came in the famous disclaimer: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances." Once they had poured candidate Gore down the drainpipe, they comforted us with assurances that no extra babies were in the bathwater." Towards the very end of the book, Holmes unleashes this glorious broadside: "That [Bush] is a feeble figure unable to articulate American interests with any force has nothing to do with the way the electoral deadlock was finally resolved ... Because his family always protected him from suffering the worst consequences of his irresponsible behaviour, he is personally not in a good position to invoke "moral hazard" as a reason to defund programs offering some modest security to the poor. For Bush to state publically that safety nets kill gumption is an invitation to laughter." A wonderful, informative book, that ends with a couple of priceless gems for the fan of bitchy political analysis.