Everyone is very bent out of shape over this whole election business. They're fussing over the implications it has on free elections, etcetera etcetera. It seems we are seeing the product of bad American education at work. If people had simply understood history, this wouldn't be an issue. The reason our founding fathers set up the process so that the electoral college ultimately had the final say--i.e. the electoral college was to follow the direction of the American people, unless there were a situation where it was deemed unwise--was that they didn't trust the general populace to be able to always vote intelligently. They knew there were a wealth of problems that could arise, and wanted a back up plan. Let's make no mistake, our founding fathers were snobs. They believed everyone deserved freedom. They didn't believe that everyone had the intelligence or maturity to take advantage of that freedom.
That said, where people lose the point is in realizing the root of this problem: frivolous lawsuits. Gore knew how the system worked, and why it was set up the way it was. However, he also knew that people were ignorant enough that he could in the very least make a media circus out of it and at the most could sue his way into office. I have always known this was a matter of time. We don't sue on what happens now, we sue on what happened fifty years ago. We sue on intent, on imagined slights. We have burglars breaking and entering and suing for injuring themselves on your windowsill. It was only a matter of time before someone tried to sue themselves into the presidency. What people lack a concept of is precedent. People tend to only see as far as what they want immediately, without considering what precedent it might be creating. No one ever thinks in terms of how it might infringe upon their freedom, only whether it currently benefits what they agree with or oppose.
So am I glad with the election results? Well I'm glad this bullshit is all done with. Am I happy that Bush is president? Of course not, he's a retard. Am I happy that Gore isn't? Of course. The man has Tipper as a wife and Naomi Wolf was his campaign advisor. Furthermore, the man would only further damage free speech with politically correct selective "sensitivity" determining what can be said by whom, and a wealth of other problems.
The funny thing I've noticed around these parts is there's no better way to clear a room than to say that you're glad Gore isn't president. I get these attitudes like I'm some die hard, god and family sort. And that's the root of the problem. People are too ripe to categorize. They pick a category for themselves and look at the world through label colored glasses. But you can't just blindly vote democrat or republican every four years. Just as you can't shut your ears to an opinion just because it comes from a different philosophical perspective. It's the isolation and fragmentation why nothing ever changes. When you berate the opposition, make implications on their morality, all that does is alienate potential allies and make you easily manipulated. It's like the joke "How many riot grrls does it take to change a lightbulb? Oh those girls will never change anything..." You factionalize yourself and demean the opposition by attacking them and insulting them. You'd have a better chance by treating them as an equal and logically explaining why you disagree with their world view.
When I was a kid, I read the Diary of Anne Frank. It left a profound impression upon me. One of the things that occurred to me was how no one believed it could happen, was happening. I realized then that no group is above reproach, no matter how large or small. You always have to be on guard against any rights that are being taken away, not just your own. You have to realize that everything is based on precedent and if your enemies are being oppressed than it's just a matter of time before you are.
Some years back, I saw the documentary on Noam Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent". There's a point where Noam Chomsky describes how he defended a nazi's right to speak. Noam Chomsky was accused of being a nazi sympathizer as a result. Basically (1) he said" No I've said that anyone who could deny the holocaust happened has lost their humanity. But if you don't believe in free speech for everyone, you don't believe in free speech."
Argue your opposition as logically and incisively as you can. Defend your position with every fiber of your being. But when you try to censor your opponents, when you instill laws or extreme intimidation to take away their rights, you can never hope to live in a free society.
(1) this is paraphrased,
as I saw this in 1994, but you it captures the meaning and is pretty close
to accurate