Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected? Right then.
(No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's reasonable doubt is damning.)
Presidential elections are not based on winning the popular vote. Our system has been based on electing electors.
You might wish it were not so, but it's been this way for well over 200 years.
(And, practically, it affects campaign strategies. In fact, it's the reason for the Electors approach, to head off a candidate spending his time only in the dense urban cores. Same general reason each state gets two senators, regardless of population.)
As for your first point, that Jeb Bush somehow awarded the election to his brother, this is silly.
True, he didn't give the Democrats a chance for a "do over," even after they complained that they thought they were voting for someone else (on a ballot designed by Democrats, by the way). It is not possible for a governor to order a re-vote, or to change the way ballots are counted, etc. A good thing, too.
"Hanging chads" may sound ridiculous, but only because the vote was so close. These same "hanging chads" have been with us for as long as punched ballots, and punched IBM cards!, have been in use.
The fact that the count was "very close" is not legal or constitutional grounds for a "do over."
--Tim May
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." --John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
