The election of 2000 was as much about George W. Bush v. Al Gore as it was a test of expediency versus legitimate results. On election night in 2000, as news outlets like CNN called Florida for Bush, Al Gore prepared his concession speech, going so far as to call Bush to concede. But his campaign staff realized all was not as it seemed: Florida was still undecided. Gore retracted his concession to Bush and told his supporters that they still had a shot. Through the night, Florida was flipped for Gore and eventually returned to the too-close-to-call pile, leaving voters in a state of confusion that would stretch far beyond election day.

 

When it became clear in the days and weeks following November 7th that the electoral votes from Florida were indeed too close to call, the anxiety of not having a winner grew to a fever pitch — stoked by both the media and the candidates themselves. Due to the growing mediatization of American politics, it would be ill-advised to ignore the role that the media played in the outcome of the 2000 election, and how both the Bush and Gore campaigns used local and national media to their advantage. The initial scramble over how to award Florida was just the beginning: issues such as the butterfly ballots, votes from overseas, and perceptions of Gore being a sore loser or Bush ignoring due process were shaped, inflamed, and wielded based on how they were reported.

 

While it’s only natural for the uncertainty of an election as impactful as the presidency to be anxiety-inducing, the resulting spotlight on election officials in Florida, particularly those in Miami-Dade County, hindered the process of election certification by attempting to speed it up.

 

To what extent did the Bush and Gore campaigns — and the American people — want a quick result over a legitimate one? Both Bush and Gore believed an expedited process to be the best course because both believed their side had the legitimate claim to the presidency. And for everyone else, they wanted an answer — one way or another.

 

Between logistical issues of hand-counting ballots and the court-mandated deadline by which to report the results, election officials in Florida faced a Herculean task. The sanctity of their work was further compromised when a demonstration lead by Republican staffers known as the Brooks Brothers Riot forced local officials to shut down the recount prematurely. Public pressure, fostered by appeals from campaigns and portrayals in the media, has the ability to affect the due process of election certification and — in the case of violent demonstrations — threaten to undermine the legitimacy of elections.

 

In 2000, the Brooks Brothers Riot was an attempt to disrupt the counting of votes, led by Republicans who believed Bush’s win was legitimate. On January 6th, 2021, the attack on the US Capitol was perpetrated by Trump supporters who believed their candidate’s loss couldn’t possibly be legitimate. The question of expediency versus legitimacy became a different one for the Trump campaign: how quickly could they prove the election had been fraudulent?

 

The answer was never. Every possible avenue for election fraud to have taken place was followed, investigated, and duly reported on — perhaps in an attempt not to repeat the mistakes of narrowing the scope of scrutiny in 2000, but certainly to reinforce the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Notably, Roger Stone, one of most fervent proponents of the false claim that the 2020 election had been stolen by Democrats and a close ally of Donald Trump’s, also claims to have managed the Brooks Brothers Riot in 2000, thus demonstrating how fueling outrage among a candidate’s base can be used to put pressure on the results of an election — and how that can lead to violence.

 

As in 2000, the use of media, both television and social channels, is a powerful avenue through which to promote narratives of illegitimacy. The fleeting nature of the news cycle has only heightened the public’s need to have certainty in the outcome of a presidential election as soon as possible. But expediency cannot be valued over validity.

 

As the 2024 election approaches, we know the chances of having an answer on election night are slim. Rather than get swept up in the need to know the results, due process must be allowed to take place — and respected — so that we, the American people, can trust the outcome, whatever it may be.