For those around during the 1960 election and now, The presidential election of 2000?

The presidential election of 2000 was one of the most disputed in American history. Yet there were other historic elections that challenged the nation. Compare the 2000 election with the election of the following year 1960. Your opinion on the outcome of the elections—should there have been different winners? Why? Your opinion on the Electoral College—should we still have the Electoral College or should we have direct elections?

Public Comments

1. No, the rightful winner won both times.
2. J.F.K. beat nixon by 100,000 votes gore beat bush
3. There is no meaningful comparison between those two elections, the 1960 election was a clear, if narrow, Democratic win. That one is notable for being the first election in which television coverage was a significant factor, the first time a non-Protestant ran successfully, and the first of the Presidential Debates now so loved by the media. A better parallel would be the election of 1888 when the Electoral College over-ruled the Popular vote and placed Benjamin Harrison in the White House over incumbent Grover Cleveland, just as the Supreme Court did in 2000 giving it to Bush over Gore. Personally, I think the popular vote should decide, but that is a question too complex to address here. The Electoral College was part of the Great Compromise of 1787 brokered by Roger Sherman and without which the U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified. It's purpose then, among others, was to get around the problems of long distance communication in an age when there was nothing faster or more reliable than mail. Since that is no longer a consideration, it could be argued that it's time to re-visit the issue, but that is also a separate question.