Talk:2000 United States presidential election/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2000 United States presidential election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Why isn't the "US Election 2000" page a redirect here? And why isn't "2000" a subpage to "U.S. presidential election"? Having an article about each election as a main topic seems a bit overenthusiastic. --Pinkunicorn

There are elections held in the U.S. every year--local, state, or national (sometimes all three). "U.S. election 2000" simply doesn't mean "U.S. presidential election." As for the second question, please see the essays about subpages at Larry Sanger/Columns. Subpages are evil. --LMS

I don't agree. If the idea is that this is the only election with an entry (because of it being unusually bungled), then I think this name is fine for the article. If there are going to be lots of them, then they should be on subpages. Look in a normal encyclopedia and you'll find that articles have subheadings (and no, Wikipedia is not paper is not a valid answer). Having them on subpages gives us a natural place for a summary. --Pinkunicorn

"If there are going to be lots of them, then they should be on subpages." I don't understand this. I don't see how the antecedent implies the consequent.

I am opposed to subpages basically on principle. I am inclined to think we should completely eliminate them, and I wish Clifford had never added that feature. :-) (Except that it sure has made talk pages easier, and without them this project would be a mess.) If you read my essays, Pink, you'll see why I say this. (Although I haven't, admittedly, given any defense of eliminating them entirely. That would require a bit more argument--or, probably, just extension of the argument I've already given. Generally, after months of experience working with them, I have grown to loathe them. It's mainly because I don't understand them--what the hell does the slash mean? It doesn't mean anything determinate. The slash just indicates that the subject of the part of the title after the slash was thought by someone to be in some fashion subordinate to the subject of the part of the title before the slash. Anyway, I feel like I'm just starting to repeat what I've already written (though, please, bear in mind that the above is only one of my arguments), and it's getting to late for me to be doing this anyway. --LMS

Okay I noticed a mistake in this article. Harry Browne was not on the ballot in all 50 states in 2000, due to some legal rangling involving two different groups which claimed to be THE Libertarian Party of Arizona he didn't get on the ballot in that state. The renegade state party put L. Neil Smith, a science-fiction author on the ballot instead.
Here's the scoop: http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=151 --MemoryHole.com

The new version is more accurate (50 of 51 ballots). --DanKeshet

This isn't quite right

The "spoiler" dynamic created by the Nader candidacy is a consequence of Duverger's Law, which states that the plurality-based voting system (used in the United States) reinforces the two-party system.

The problem here is that Presidental elections isn't quite first past the post system because of the electoral college. If it were Gore would have won. Now one could argue that the electoral college reinforces the two party system, but that isn't Duverger's law. One might try to argue that Gore lost because Nader took away votes in some key states, but that's different from what the paragraph says and is also different from Duverger's law.

Electors in most states are picked using first-past-the-post, and so Duverger's law absolutely applies here. It's a classic example of the effect. William Riker, considered an authority on the subject, brings up the 1968 U.S. Presidential election as a clear example of Duverger's law at work, citing the research of Bensel and Sanders in analyzing the results of this election.

I'll try to make the subtleties a little more clear, but the applicability of Duverger's law to U.S presidential politics (and Bush/Gore/Nader specifically) can hardly be refuted.

I think there was some kind of civil rights investigation into the Florida elections procedures well after the fact. Would it be appropriate to document the investigation's findings in this article? Wesley

It seems that there is more information on the 2000 election on the Bush page than there is here. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I propose moving most of the 2000 election information OFF of the George W. Bush page and putting it here. --Ed Poor

Thanks for the move, Cunc. --Ed

Can anyone add statistics concerning the percentage of voter participation into this article? Florida voter partipication might be especially interesting... Thanks. --Chuck Smith

129.186.80.115: What does "A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (some for crimes committed in the future)" mean? It's a provocative tidbit but it needs to be clarified.

Does it mean:

A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (because they committed crimes between voting and the tabulation of the vote) and a number of voters who had never committed crimes were also falsely listed as felons?
A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (because they committed crimes after the tabulation of the vote)?
A number of voters were incorrectly listed as felons (some of these later committed crimes, but this should not have affected the validity of their votes)?
something else?

Someone else

A number of voters were listed as felons despite never having committed a crime and despite the alleged crime having been stated as occuring in the future. It was a huge goddamn scandal... Lir 23:31 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Ditto. What the heck is this? Changed wording pending clarification.

From Recent Changes: "U.S. presidential election, 2000; 17:22 . . Vicki Rosenzweig (alleged felonies dated as late as 2007)"

On another note, WHAT THE FUCK! How could this not have been a huge goddamn scandal?!? Is this true? Am I living in Guatemala or something? I'd REALLY like to see a reference for this (mostly for my own education). Graft

Your reference: The Great Florida Ex-Con Game -- How the “felon” voter-purge was itself felonious (Harper's Magazine, March 2002) -- RobLa

A bit of general background: American elections have always had a tinge of corruption, more or less.

Another background factoid: other democratic countries have had as much, if not more.

My favorite factoid: most countries called "democratic" are in fact totalitarian (like "People's democratic republic of tarfustan")

--Ed Poor

Don't knock the proud and free country of Tarfustan, Ed. Some of my best friends are Tarfustani:)Tokerboy 21:58 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

The election was marked by the extraordinarily close vote in Florida, whose electoral votes determined the election.

I can't think of a better way to word this, but it is not factually true. Florida's electoral votes no more determined the outcome than any other conglomeration of the same number of electoral votes. Florida was simply the last state to come to a conclusion about who won in the state; if the race hadn't been close in rest of the country too, Florida's debacle would have been a footnote outside of Florida. Tokerboy 21:58 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Please revise the sentence so that POV is either (a) labelled as Democratic or whover espouses it; or (b) removed from the article. We might say, some partisans of X party believe that Florida determined the election or some observers believe that TV "calling" the vote before the largely pro-Bush western panhandle of Florida had finished voting caused the whole Florida mess. --Ed Poor

How about US presidential election of 2000 Susan Mason

Why? Are elections in the US usually written as the 'election of {year}'? In Europe they are usually written as 'Election 2000' 'Election in 2000' or 'Election, 2000' never 'Election of 2000' unless in a sentence where one talks of the election of 2000. But that is the only context I've ever seen it mentioned in. It makes far more sense stylistically to say 'US president election, 2000' because it draws attention to the fact in the title that there are to aspects, 'US presidential election' and '2000'. Turning it to one complete sentence would be cumbersome and would require all past names be changed. There would want to be a fery good reason to change everything and rename everything from scratch. I cannot think of a single reason for doing it. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:58 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, everytime I refer to the election I write US Presidential Election of 2000 and it seems gramatically incorrect to have a comma for, as far as I can tell, no reason at all. Susan Mason

The comma is used in the context of the title to divide between the two main facts contained in the title, that it is concerned with the US presidential election and that it is concerned with the year 2000. That format would not be used in a sentence, because it would look, sound and be grammatically incorrect, but it is often used in a title, where the title is not itself self-contained but but is in effect part of a series; US presidential election, 1996, US presidential, 1960. US presidential election, 1940s. Sometimes commas are used, sometimes colons. The effect is to the same, to indicate that the title is part of a chain and not completely self contained. It is complicated but I suppose we seem to be stuck with it. But it is the format used in titles referring to elections in Europe, etc. For example, the general election in Ireland last year was described in titles and in screen graphics as 'General Election, 2002' or 'election 2002'. It is the standard form in titles that makes it clear it is part of a series, where the year varies. US presidential election of 2000 would make the title too self-contained, or so the theory goes to people who design these things. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:18 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

If we seem to be stuck with it, it is only because you don't want to let me change it. Substituting the standard , for of would transmist just as much information, and agree with the style of having article titles match a commonly used phrase -- I don't think it's common to say, "And the winner of the US Presidential election, 2000, was GW!" People do speak of the election of such and such a year. Susan Mason

FCOL Susan, I've just explained to you. There is a difference between the title that is used generally to refer to elections, and the words spoken.This is a title, repeat a title. What people say are words, not a title. And no you cannot try yet another unilaterally change, this case a title that is part of a series without getting widespread agreement just because you feel like it. What is it about you trying to unilaterally change titles or listings that are the work of many people without getting agreement of other people? I didn't pick this title. I simply explained to you why this form of title is generally used by sourcebooks, by media organisations in their graphics layouts, by books, by magazines. It is not me stopping you. It is the collective of everyone who has worked on a series of these pages. Do you have some sort of fetish about trying to annoy as many people as possible? Not a single person has supported your idea. All I did was come on constructively to explain to you why this format probably was chosen for all the election pages. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:52 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, who are these shadow people who created this naming system and for whom you are speaking? So far, only you have spoken about it, so please don't try to use some kind of bandwagon argument. Furthermore, how is this naming system better than US Presidential Election of 2000. How would you say, "The US Presidential Election of 2000 occurred in 2000", surely you would not say, "The U.S. Presidential Election, 2000, occurred in 2000". I am often argued against by people stating that what we have to use is the name which people are most likely to write when editing an article, as I am sick of using a redirect, I am curious what other people are using to link to this page when they write about it.Susan Mason

So far I am the only person who has even bothered to take your idea seriously enough to warrant talking about. And I think it is ludicrous idea. Are you going to take on the responsibility of renaming every single article on wiki to confirm to your unique idea? To fix hundreds and hundreds of links? Or do you simply want to cause chaos here to and then move on somewhere else? STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:07 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I highly doubt that I am the only one who feels the name should be changed, I would guess most people are afraid to argue with you and your insulting behavior. It is clear that your argument eventually collapses to "its too much work", luckily its really not that hard to move a page. Susan Mason

I don't think either one is more useful or accurate than the other. Thus, I don't support any move as it would be a waste of time. Tuf-Kat

Im not asking you to make the move. Furthermore, changing the name of the page means that one doesnt have to use a redirect when one writes, "The US Presidential Election of 2000 resulted in a victory for GW!" Susan Mason

Of course the only reason why Lir (excuse me, I mean Susan) wants to change this is to cause as much chaos as possible. He wasn't succesful in changing all names from English recognizable to the names as used in their native langauges. He wasn't succesful in putting his own POV on such articles as New imperialism, so here he comes again, with wanting to rename all of the presidential election articles and changing the way all lists of names look. It's just a way to keep him in the public eye and in the center of attention. He seems to have a need to cause trouble. -- Zoe

Would somebody explain what Zoe's problem is? Im tired of her harrassment. Susan Mason

Oh, that's funny! -- Zoe

Just relax and use a redirect. If there is not one already, make a new one. When I first started here I used to stuff around trying to find the existing title of the entry I wanted to link to and then waste ages typing [[Name of existing article|name I want to use in this context]] and lose the flow of what I was writing and generally getting frustrated. I guess I thought that having any of my links redirect made them somehow "wrong". Silly me.

Then, one day, I thought "Why should I worry about using redirects? That's what they are there for."

Life is so much easier when you just relax and use the redirect system.

(PS: I have no opinion on the "correct" title of this page. Either way, I don't care. If I want to link to it one day, I'll just make a link to whatever title seems most appropriate at the time, and if it doesn't wind up here I'll make a new redirect so that it does. Easy.) Tannin

But at some point it would be nice to improve some fundamental issues which Jtdirl-Zoe seem to wish to maintain as is solely because they don't appreciate my dissent with their consensus. Susan Mason

You may well be right, Susan. With a million other thing vying for my attention I haven't tried to take the time to make up my mind on this one, or even read the arguments for and against - hell! I get wound up in far too many distracting and/or trivial issues as it is, when I ought to be contributing something of substance or, as is the case today, doing some real work - the stuff I get paid for.

My apologies. I had thought Lir had deleted my comment, but I missed that it was still there. -- Zoe

no problem. Tannin

Susan Mason has made a good point that writing about the US Presidential Election of 2000 is a lot more natural if one can link to it as the US Presidential Election of 2000, and I also find that title just generally more aesthetically pleasing. Well, actually I prefer abbreviations to be written with dots to make it clear that they are abbreviations, although I admit that I'm not entirely consistent about this IIRC... ;) On the other hand, making a redirect would pretty much solve the problem; then people could link to whichever version they preferred. But back on the first hand again, the "Redirected from..." text does irritate people, and many people find linking to redirects distasteful. But then back on the second hand, changing this title would require lots of other titles to be changed to make things consistent, and that would be a lot of work. But in conclusion, I think Susan's title is better, as long as someone is prepared to move all the similarly titled pages and fix all the double redirects! Except... no, wait! U.S. Presidential Election (2000) would also have advantages, because although it's not as aesthetically pleasing and you'd have to use pipes all the time because you'd never want the text as it is, you'd get to use the pipe trick! Hmm, okay, forget that last suggestion. -- Oliver Pereira

Thank you Oliver. I believe the best way to make changes such as this is to follow the policy I have been engaging in with regards to lists. For example, lets say I was going to change this page. Id move it, then id move perhaps the election of 1996. Then id call it a day and later when I might move the election of 1992 and then of 1988. If others are informed of the change, it will gradually change. Or...we could program a computer to do it. Susan Mason

Hmm... Seems a bit half-hearted, but I can't really complain, as I've probably left about a million things round here that I've started doing and then had to leave for one reason or another... Still, if there are no better arguments against moving the pages than that it all seems a bit pointless and a waste of effort, then I'll help you move the pages if you like... But what about the dots? Do you not like dots? -- Oliver P. 05:27 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

So let me get this right, Susan. A chain of people have been creating a long list of files, following a deliberate naming pattern. Then along comes Susie and she decides to break that change, all because her/his nibs doesn't like the comma. In effect, screw everyone else and their work. You don't set up a debate. Don't contract the people who put together the pages. Don't start a big conversation on all the talk-pages. Just announce I don't want this page this way and I will change it to fit the way I want. And when people complain (and they do with most things you touch) you the run off and complain that there is a vendetta against you. Curiously, that is exactly what Lir did, and what Vera did. And while wiki is quite tolerant of people coming back if they change their ways, if someone comes back and acts in their old manner, the reason that got them barred in the first place, they are invariably flung out of wiki almost as quickly as George Bush will send his troops into Kuwait. Or are we going to have to deal with the other farces you have created - you unilaterally change lists, people vote down your planned move of them and them it falls to someone else to undo your unilateral changes. And if you change some of the election pages, and get stopped as invariably you do when you go on one of your 'unilateral' missions, and then get outvoted by everyone else who as usual will say 'what the hell do you think you are doing? Leave them the way they were!' you will disappear and it fall to others to undo your vandalism, while you turn to the next page you want to change to look the way you want it do. And the saga continues until as is enevitable, you get banned and reappear as yet another person. If you want to change the way wiki election pages are, start a debate and get agreement to change the template. Don't unilaterally do what you want and not give a damn about everyone else. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:54 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't GW unilaterally sending his troops into Iraq? I any case, I am debating and you can no longer act as if I am the only one who thinks this title should change, because 2 people have agreed with me, and the rest dont seem to think its a bad idea (with the exception of Zoe). You have written a very nice personal attack, but you continue to avoid explaining why you like the comma. Susan Mason

Two? I know I did, but who was the other one? I'd sort of got the impression that everyone else just thought it was a waste of time... And STÓD/ÉÍRE, don't be so mean to Susan... Making changes to the Wikipedia is the wiki way! It's only in cases where the changes go against Wikipedia policy or the Manual of Style, or are generally destructive, that people have a right to start complaining, surely? Just rearranging stuff doesn't harm anyone... -- Oliver P. 13:25 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Others, such as Washington County Elections Chief Carol Griffen (1 p.25), have argued that Florida was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by not requiring those convicted of felonies in other states, and subsequently restored their rights, to request clemency from Governor Bush in a process which might take 2 years and ultimately was left to Bush's discrection.

Hi Susan - I moved the above here because I can't understand what it means, and I can't clarify the grammar without understanding what the point is. There are four commas in the sentence and I can't tell what is dependent on what. I'm getting some sort of meaning out of it like:

Carol Griffen argued florida was in violation because it didn't require felons to request clemency.

And that just isn't making sense to me -º¡º

This was poorly written, I am re-inserting it as:

Others, such as Washington County Elections Chief Carol Griffen (1 p.25), have argued that Florida was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by requiring those convicted of felonies in other states (and subsequently restored their rights by said states), to request clemency and a restoration of their rights, from Governor Bush, in a process which might take 2 years and ultimately was left to Bush's discrection.

Susan Mason

Making changes is great, Oliver. The trouble with Susan is she

unilaterally makes changes to articles that are part of a series, breaking links in style, structure, etc.

waits until an idea has been discussed to death, then after a decision has been reached, jumps in with her own version, and then makes changes to suit herself while throwing a tantrum if her idea is not taken seriously - which at that stage it usually isn't because a decision has already been taken, implemented and worked through by everyone. In every organisation, if someone comes in late, tries to highjack an already made decision and throws tantrums if they don't get their own way, they at the very best are told to f*** off. More often than not they get the sack.

You can write your opinions in fifteen feet lettering and still Susan seems incapable of understanding them, or else deliberately chooses to pretend she still hasn't got the message. But for the umpteenth time, Susan, since you seem incapable of grasping simple facts:
- I am opposed to renaming this article because IT IS PART OF A SERIES. For the sake of a comma, Susan seems to want to rename an entire series of article. That would be a LUDICROUS WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT.
- I am opposed because it uses the STANDARD NAMING TECHNIQUE FOR DESCRIBING AND NAMING CAMPAIGNS. People do not write 'election in 2000' or 'election for '2000' they write 'ELECTION, 2000' or 'ELECTION 2000'. It is the standard nomenclature used in headlines. It is not what is said in them, it is the HEADLINE. (and before Susan goes into her usual whinge about shouting, like a lot of people I am finding that if don't shout, Susan will keep insisting that you still haven't told her your reasons even when you have done nothing but but full up a talk page doing just that!)
- Only Susan has this comma problem, just as only Susan was bothered enough with the naming system on lists to try unilaterally to re-order things, leaving things on a half-baked mess. Most people if they have a problem take it to a discussion and discuss for days if not longer with people the problem and their proposed solution. And if it is a problem that involves a series of pages, they hold in depth discussions with many people, right down to putting things on the wiki-list. Not Susan. She unilaterally makes a move, takes high offence if people complain and re-instate it pending a full discussion, then moves on not to the next article but the next series which she then unilaterally sabotages again, without checking with people first. YOU CANNOT CHANGE ONE IN A LONG SERIES OF ARTICLES UNILATERALLY, SUSAN. If you want to waste time changing all election articles because as you are famous for, you have a minor technical problem which seems to you as earth-shatteringly important as the Third Secret of Fatima, do it by consultation. In the case of a series of articles, a lot of consultation on wiki talk pages and the list. Right now, the only time Susan appears on the wiki list is when, almost on a daily basis, yet another person complains about what you are doing, and makes the allegation (so far not explictly denied) that you are a banned user, in fact banned twice, who is now behaving in exactly the same way again. (Which is why people are questioning whether you should be banned again). STÓD/ÉÍRE 14:24 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Erm, but she hasn't moved the page to US Presidential Election of 2000. Look, the page is still here! Susan is engaging in discussion on the talk page, not just jumping in and moving things off her own bat. So what's the complaint? There are some users around here who are far less cooperative and willing to discuss things than Susan is[1], so I can't see why you're picking on her. -- Oliver P. 15:07 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well that is an improvement. STÓD/ÉÍRE 19:04 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Right, but you still do not adress how you would refer tot his election if you were writing about it. Do you really think people should write, "The U.S. presidential election, 2000, was a close one!", you talk about headlines and such, but the wiki-convention is that we use what is most commonly used in reference to the event so that the person writing and linking to it doesn't have to make re-directs. In the long run, changing every single one of these will save a lot of work for writers of American political history.

I would argue that one primary reason that capitalism is such a failure is that it is a hierarchial model in which authority figures decree that discussion is to stop or that dissenters are lone troublemaking radicals. I believe the wiki should strive to avoid a system in which a cabal exercises discretionary control. In short, although you are a wiki-conservative and I am a wiki-liberal; you should be glad that I'm here arguing with you, because Im trying to improve your product.

Anyways, Jtdirl/Tarquin/Zoe/Stevertigo's argument falls down to 3 points (as I understand it of course), which I refute below:

This is a series and it's too much work to change
- Im not asking you to lift a finger, the wiki is a lot of work but we can do it ourselves
This is what is used in headlines
- But not in common speech
You are acting unilaterally
- No, I am simply not acting with the support of you and your 150 good friends.

In addition, I add an additional point:

Is it grammatically correct to write, "The U.S. presidential election, 2000, was a contest between Bush and Gore."

Susan Mason

--- Having been there near the beginning of this series, I can tell you how it evolved.

Somewhere, someone decided to name this particular page "U.S. presidential election, 2000".
Without a lot of thought about linking or anything like that, I took it upon myself to create every other article based on the stats at the National Archives (wikifying the tables there). I used the precedent set there.
Almost immediately, The Cunctator pointed out that this was a silly idea (see my talk page), and wondered if it was too late to change it.
I responded: "ugh...probably".

That's where we left it. There was no large discussion or consensus building activity...it was a dopey, overly enthusiastic Wikiholic (me) who propogated the current madness.

If I had it to do all over again, I would probably have gone for "the 2000 U.S. presidential election". Now that moving pages is far easier than it was in the days that I mucked everything up, I don't think it would be that big of a problem to move these pages, though I think we should agree on a convention. Though not entirely inappropriate, this particular venue (a particular election talk page) seems like a rather arbitrary place to discuss. -- RobLa 05:42 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Well we gotta start somewhere. I would accept 2000 US Presidential Election, however I think the U.S. is redundant and unnecessary, I would prefer US Presidential Election of 2000. Susan Mason

Is the United States the only nation that had presidential elections in 2000? How Americocentric of you. -- Zoe

Did you mean that the dots in "U.S." were unnecessary, Susan? I think writing "U.S." looks better, to show that it's an abbreviation. The United States article says "U.S." in the opening line. But I agree that the year would look nicer at the end, as that's where disambiguating years usually go (e.g. in films and so on). -- Oliver P. 06:00 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary to show that its an abbreviation, it is a common abbreviation such as NAACP or FBI Susan Mason

Hmm... Shall we have a vote? ;) -- Oliver P. 06:04 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Oh nono, the wiki is not a democracy. We have to wait for Jtdirl and Zoe to reach a consensus. Susan Mason

--- I'm okay with it being on the end. Here's the options that seem to have support:

I prefer "U.S." to "US", but I'm not sure if there's any policy one way or another (I'd prefer if this got vetted on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page). The capitalization needs to be lower case unless there's a really compelling case for uppercase (I don't see one).

Regardless, I don't think this is the right forum, because (I hope) no one is proposing changing this article without changing the other 43 articles in this series. We should vet this on a more visible page. -- RobLa 06:14 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't care which title is used, but if there is a change it will take a great deal of donkey work mending links. I volunteer some time to help with that. Tannin

Ah, that's very kind of you! But I think Susan and I will be able to cope; after all, we were the ones awkward enough to support moving everything... :) -- Oliver P. 10:01 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

No problem. Sing out if you want a hand. Sometimes, at the end of a hard day's yakka, it's nice to have a repetitive task that doesn't require too many tough decisions. Sort of relaxing. :) --T

It should certainly be "presidential election" rather than "Presidential Election". I personally prefer "US" to "U.S.", but either is fine. Whatever happens, can we make sure we get lots of redirects from all the other proposed forms? Martin

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2000 United States presidential election/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This was a well done article and on a one to ten scale I'd give it a ten. More people should be aware of how he really got into office.

Last edited at 04:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)