The election of 2000 showed for the first time in over a century that US presidential elections were not the pillars of stability they had been perceived of in the 20th century but instead, messy, contentious things ripe with strife and ambiguity. What’s more, the election of 2000 proved even more contentious with the fact that for the first time since the automobile was invented, the popular vote and the electoral vote went in different ways, meaning the candite who eventually sat in the White House during the term, a very chaotic and dramatic time in American History, was not the leader the majority of the country had wanted. It is the ways that the response to contentious elections differs after 100 years that might provide insight into the current election, one almost guaranteed to be contentious.

 

There are two main ways in which contested elections are responded to. There are the processes of justice, those inner state functions that attempt to make sense of the conflicting results and come to a central conclusion so a president can be inaugurated by January. Then there is the court of public opinion, a much less impartial but still important part in shaping the results of contested elections. Ultimately, power resides where the people think it does, and so the perception of an election being fair is vastly important for the health of democracy.

 

In terms of the process of adjudication within the government itself, there is a shift in who the responsibility falls to in resolving contested elections. In 1800, 1824, and 1876, it was Congress who took the burden. Whether it was with a corrupt bargain or a secret congress committee, it was the legislative branch that ultimately decided the president when the vote was unclear. In 2000, however, it was the judicial branch that had the responsibility to resolve the issue. Through a series of local and supreme court cases, the recount of Florida, something that, if fully done, would have, in all likelihood, changed the results of the election, was suppressed. So, while these judges did not directly pick the president like Congress in past elections, they did so indirectly with their rulings.

 

The media and lay perception of the elections have also shifted between the last contested election in 1876 and 2000. The shift from local print media to national television journalism marked a huge shift in how elections were portrayed and consumed by the public. This is not an idol change; the media, in calling the election early for Bush and in their dramatization and flawed coverage of the recount, made the internal and frankly boring process of something as simple as a recount a widely watched and partisan thing. Since then, the rise of the internet has democratized information, meaning anyone with a phone and a mouth can spread information, be it accurate or not. While this is by no means a universally bad thing, it did lead to the disinformation and radical extremism that caused the January 6th insurrection, when misinformation caused the perception that the election was contested despite it being rather clear.

 

What can be learned from the shifting patterns of how contentious elections are decided and covered will be useful in the likely contentious 2024 election. Ultimately, it will more than likely come down to the courts to decide the election, and the media, now digital and widespread spread, will without a doubt also make those inner workings very public and provide countless opinions on the results. Despite the tone of this blog, this shift towards judicial decisions and media transparency might not be a great evil. In fact, it is a more democratic system than the election being decided in backroom deals by corrupt congressmen. It is messy and headache-enduing, but that is pretty par for the course for American politics.