Stating the obvious? Yes. But a more detail analysis is worth a look. Below, I revisit the 2000 presidential election. All data presented was current as of then.

In a true democracy, "one person (equals) one vote" applies. However, the misinformed and Republicans, often one-and-the-same, don't realize that ours is a republic, in which the "one person (equals) one vote" rule does not apply. In the U.S., the presidential election is determined through the electoral college. A state's electoral votes are loosely tied to its population.

State Population EV Candidate
WY 495,304 3 Bush

Antonin Scalia is the fascist Justice who personally shut down the state-wide recount in Florida on December 10, 2000 when he issued an emergency injunction in Bush v. Gore saying an accurate recount would hurt George W. Bush. Scalia's unprecedented injuction created a furor among law school professors, and 673 signed a letter of outrage that was published in major newspapers. Two days later, Scalia was one of five partisan Republicans who threw out 175,000 never-counted Florida votes so they could declare George Bush the winner. When those votes were finally counted, Gore won Florida under all 6 scenarios in which all of the votes were counted.

I know that this is 6 years ago, but I find myself STLL bitter about the total lack of accountability of The Supreme Court for its BLATANT JUDICIAL ELECTION OF A "president"!!!!! How can this Court be held accountable????

Al Gore is a statesman. When he conceded in 2000, it was to avoid a constitutional crisis. So it was especially ironic and poignant in January when the statesman who preferred concession to provoking a constitutional crisis spoke out about the dangers facing our constitution today: governmental eavesdropping on American citizens, breaking the rule of law, torture by Americans, expansion of executive power by a unilateral executive, perpetual war, and the obliteration of our constitutional system of checks and balances.

"An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution, an all-powerful executive; too reminiscent of the king from whom they had broken free....

Republicans are talking about impeaching judges for wretched decisions.

Good! Let's impeach the Supreme Court's Felonious Five for Bush v. Gore - the most wretched decision since Plessy.

From today's First Read:

Back to all the talk of retribution against judges.  We wondered whether or not Congress actually can impeach judges over decisions it doesn't agree with.  The constitutional scholars we talked with don't think so.  Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman cites the 1804 impeachment -- and acquittal one year later -- of US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who Ackerman says was accused, with some justification, of partisanship and serious judicial mistakes.  "Just making legal mistakes is not ground for impeachment," he says.  "We've had this argument before."