The Unfinished Election Of 2000 Leading Scholars Examine America's Strangest Election (Hardcover)

by Jack N. Rakove (Author) "TWO OF SHAKESPEARE'S MOST OFTEN-QOUTED LINES come early in Macbeth, to describe the death of the traitorous Thane of Cawdor: "Nothing in his life/Became him..." (more)
Key Phrases: contest phase, county canvassing board, election code, United States, New York Times, Fourteenth Amendment (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Seven law professors and historians weigh in on the 2000 election in scholarly but lively essays. Pulitzer Prize-winning Stanford historian and political scientist Rakove (Original Meanings) calls it unfinished "not because of its inherent importance, but rather for what it revealed about our politics, institutions, and even the Constitution itself." These essays explore systemic foibles in U.S. politics with an eye toward wider contexts and deeper causes. John Milton Cooper Jr. and Henry Brady both contrast 2000 with the realigning election of 1896, when regional party dominance was reversed. Cooper stresses the normalcy of close elections, while Brady tracks regional flip-flops and analyzes political party coalitions in terms of the moral and economic issues influencing major demographic groups' partisan tilts. Alexander Keycard relates Florida's multiple forms of disenfranchisement to historical patterns, and Larry Kramer explicates the two major cases in both the Florida and the U.S. Supreme courts, concluding that the U.S. Supreme Court's final decision was "an extreme instance of a regular pattern" of conservative judicial activism that distrusts democratic processes. Pamela S. Karlan details the logical and historical development of equal-protection election law, illuminating major anomalies and contortions in Bush v. Gore. Rakove extensively critiques the electoral college, a somewhat accidental creation that, he says, never functioned as intended. Stephen Holmes casts the disenfranchisement of minority voters as an example of "selective defunding of public institutions," and disparages what he views as conservatives' ideological hypocrisy and liberals' romantic association of "judicial review with socially progressive causes." This fine multidisciplinary response could have a lasting impact on how Americans understand the 2000 election. 3 charts.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
The election remains unfinished, the authors argue, "for what it revealed about our politics, institutions, and perhaps even the Constitution itself." Historian John Milton Cooper Jr. judges the parties strong and competitive; political scientist Henry E. Brady explores the election's geography and examines the clusters of moral and economic attitudes to which each party appeals. Historian Alexander Keyssar places the election in the context of the continuing struggle over suffrage in America. Law professor Larry D. Kramer describes the legal and constitutional issues addressed by the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts, and law professor Pamela S. Karlan evaluates the logic and merit of the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the equal protection clause. The editor, a Stanford University historian, traces the electoral college's roots and arguments for its retention, and law professor Stephen Holmes' afterword ponders the meaning and outcome of the election. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 288 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (October 17, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465068375
• ISBN-13: 978-0465068371
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.4 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,764,076 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Entertaining analysis of the 2000 presidential elections, August 3, 2003

By	Charles Eliot (Duvall, WA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Unfinished Election of 2000 (Paperback)

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.

4 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars The Title Tells You The Slant, December 21, 2005

By	Maestroh "A.A., A.A.S.,B.M.E.,Th.M." (Dallas Theological Cemetery) - See all my reviews

Interested in a legal argument as opposed to the usual partisan bickering, I picked this up from a Half Price Bookstore in Texas. I should have kept my $5 because I got precisely what I didn't want - another partisan whine.

The title tells you all you need to know. 'The Unfinished Election of 2000.' Really? I thought that ended at 9:59 p.m. on December 12, 2000 when the United States Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 (not the commonly cited 5-4) margin that selective recounts in Democratic counties violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. (The 5-4 was in regards to the REMEDY not the actual VIOLATION OF THE LAW).

It is clear from reading the book that all seven authors voted for Al Gore and are now looking for a 'legalese' way to say that he was 'robbed' or the election was 'stolen.' And they hardly present their argument objectively. In one chapter there are FIFTEEN separate references to 'conservative majority' or 'Republican Supreme Court' as though the leanings of the justice are relevant. But if this is true, it is equally true that they NEVER refer to the ALL-DEMOCRATIC Florida Supreme Court. Why? My suspicion is that it would undermine the very point they're trying to make. Although they correctly ask whether the US Court would have taken the case to help Gore, they never discuss what the ruling might have been with the Democratic Supreme Court in Florida had it been Bush, either.

The best way to evaluate this entire argument is this: if you are a Democrat, would you support selective recounts in heavily Republican counties to determine the President? This is all the Republicans were ever arguing in the first place. Gore has himself to blame for the defeat because he never once asked for a statewide recount.

And ironically enough, these Gore-slanted lawyers have NO PROBLEM throwing out the votes of military personnel based on the same kinds of 'technicalities' they want admitted when it is Gore votes. I found it hard to swallow that all seven of these guys were not lawyers for Gore during the proceedings.

There is some good historical information, though, as the question of whether or not a 'realignment' has occurred such as happened in 1896 and 1968. There are some ways it has. Until Bush won, no Republican had ever won without Illinois, yet Illinois is now safely a Democratic bastion at the Presidential level.

A nice book in terms of the pages and layout, but don't confuse it with an 'unbiased account.' The book is every bit as partisan as it accuses the US Supreme Court of being.