U.S. presidential election, 2004

The U.S. presidential election of 2004 was won by the incumbent President, Republican George W. Bush, who defeated his main rival, Democratic Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. The election was fought primarily on the issue of the conduct of the War on Terror. Bush defended the actions of his administration, while Kerry contended that the war had been fought incompetently, and that the Iraq War was a distraction from the War on Terror, not a part of it.

New during this campaign

International observers

At the request of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past http://www.whitehouse.gov/interactive/wilkinson_osce.html. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report (PDF 168K) on US electoral processes.http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/election.observers.ap/http://www.aicgs.org/c/renvertc.shtml

Related Topics:
OSCE - September 2004

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Earlier, some 13 U.S. Representatives from the Democratic Party had sent a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking for the UN to monitor the elections. The UN responded that such a request could only come from the official national executive. The move was met by considerable opposition from Republican lawmakers http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040806-115723-1192r.htm. The OSCE is not affiliated with the United Nations.

Related Topics:
U.S. Representatives - Democratic Party - United Nations - Kofi Annan

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

International observers faced a number of hurdles. Because U.S. electoral law is largely state law, individual U.S. states could refuse to allow them to observe the elections on various grounds; for instance, a state law may require observers to be registered voters from the area. http://www.moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/2004/comment0928.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Electronic voting

Some states rushed to have new electronic voting systems operational for the 2004 election. Many security analysts warned that computer voting terminals had a significant possibility of voter fraud or data corruption by a software attack. Others said that recounts would be nearly impossible with the machines and criticized the lack of a "paper trail," which is included in many other trivial events such as grocery shopping or using an ATM. Machines which do not use a paper trail are called Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. One of the largest manufacturers of DRE voting systems is Diebold, also a manufacturer of ATMs. Author Bev Harris, in her book Black Box Voting, describes in detail her opinion of the potential problems created by DRE systems.

Related Topics:
Electronic voting - Voter fraud - ATM - Direct Recording Electronic - Diebold - Bev Harris - Black Box Voting

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents of computer voting say that the intent of the voter can be recorded with greater certainty and accuracy than using paper ballots.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Campaign law changes

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

Related Topics:
Campaign finance reform - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 - McCain - Feingold - United States Senate - 527 group - Internal Revenue Code - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - MoveOn.org - Media Fund - America Coming Together

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement "I'm ', and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement " is responsible for the content of this advertisement," and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This law was not well known or widely publicized at the beginning of the Democratic primary season, which led to some early misperception of Howard Dean, who was the first candidate to buy television advertising in this election cycle. Not realizing that the law required the phrasing, some people viewing the ads reportedly questioned why Dean might say such a thing?such questions were easier to ask because of the maverick nature of Dean's campaign in general.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Colorado's Amendment 36

:Main article: Colorado Amendment 36

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

Related Topics:
Colorado - Amendment 36 - Plurality - Nebraska - Maine

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legal challenges

Election watchers and political analysts forecast a number of contested election results in a manner similar to the Florida voting recount of 2000. Various states grappled with their own legal issues that could have affected the outcome of the vote, while both of the major political parties and a number of independent groups like the ACLU marshaled numbers of lawyers.

Related Topics:
Florida - 2000 - ACLU

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In several states including Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Nevada, there were lawsuits or other disputes about such issues as "voter challenging," voter registration, and absentee ballots. These were considered unlikely to change the Electoral College result. In Florida, for example, multiple lawsuits were filed even before the election, but few observers expected any of them to change the official result that Bush had outpolled Kerry by roughly 400,000 votes. As of the morning of November 3rd, the deciding state in the electoral vote count was Ohio, where Bush held a 136,000 vote lead. Democrats' hopes rested on the approximately 135,000 provisional ballots that had yet to be counted. Nevertheless, after concluding that a recount would not change the election results, Kerry conceded defeat at about 11:00 EST that morning, and George W. Bush declared victory the afternoon of the same day.

Related Topics:
Ohio - Colorado - Florida - Nevada - EST

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Two of the third-party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb, cooperated in requesting a recount of the Ohio vote (although Cobb led the effort). After announcing their intention and soliciting donations, they quickly raised $150,000 to cover the state's required fee and other costs. A statewide recount of the presidential vote was completed; however, some observers claim that the recount was conducted improperly, and illegally, and have filed a new lawsuit, which is currently pending. The Congressional Democrats who objected to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes relied on part on information about voting irregularities provided by observers working for the Cobb campaign.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~