The Birth of “Red” and “Blue” America
The 2000 election changed America forever. The Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision halted Florida’s recount, handing the presidency to George W. Bush and leaving a lasting cloud of controversy. But this election did more than spark debate—it cemented the idea of “Red vs. Blue” America.
The legacy of 2000 still looms large. The question is: How much of our division is real, and how much is just color-coded?
On November 7, 2000, Americans went to the polls in what would become one of the most disputed elections in U.S. history. The focus narrowed to Florida, where the vote margin between Bush and Gore was extraordinarily slim, triggering an automatic machine recount as mandated by state law. The initial recount reduced Bush’s lead to just 317 votes. Subsequently, Gore requested manual recounts in four counties, citing concerns over ballot issues such as the infamous “hanging chads” on punch-card ballots. Legal battles ensued over the recount process, deadlines, and the inclusion of certain ballots. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes, but this decision was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 9. In a 5–4 decision on December 12, the Court ruled in Bush v. Gore to stop the recounts, effectively awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes—and the presidency—to Bush. This ruling remains a subject of debate and has had lasting implications on public trust in the electoral process.
Prior to the 2000 election, there was no consistent color scheme to represent the two major political parties on electoral maps; media outlets varied in their use of colors, sometimes even alternating them between election cycles. For instance, during the 1976 election, NBC used blue to denote states won by Republican Gerald Ford and red for those won by Democrat Jimmy Carter. This lack of standardization persisted for decades.
The protracted uncertainty of the 2000 election, with its extended recounts and legal battles, kept electoral maps in the public eye for weeks. During this period, major news networks adopted a uniform color scheme: red for Republican victories and blue for Democratic ones. This visual representation resonated with the public, leading to the widespread adoption of the terms “red states” and “blue states” to describe Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning states, respectively. The fixation on these colors became so ingrained that they are now standard in political discourse and media representation.
The 2000 election’s legacy extends beyond the establishment of a color-coded political map. The contentious nature of the election and the Supreme Court’s intervention heightened partisan divisions and led to increased scrutiny of the electoral process. The terms “red state” and “blue state” have come to symbolize the deep-seated ideological divides within the country, often oversimplifying the complex political landscapes of individual states. This binary classification can obscure the presence of diverse political views within states and contribute to a perception of a more polarized nation.
Furthermore, the standardization of red and blue as representations of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, is somewhat counterintuitive when compared to international norms. Globally, red is typically associated with left-leaning or socialist parties, while blue is linked to conservative parties. The American reversal of this color symbolism underscores the unique evolution of the country’s political and media practices.
The 2000 presidential election was a turning point that not only tested the resilience of the American electoral system but also transformed the visual language of political affiliation in the United States. The adoption of red and blue to represent the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, has become a lasting symbol of the nation’s political identity, influencing how elections are reported and how Americans perceive political divisions. As the nation continues to grapple with issues of partisanship and electoral integrity, the legacy of the 2000 election serves as a reminder of the profound impact that electoral processes and media representations can have on democratic society.
Exploring Division: Who Profits and How We Rebuild
Did you know that prior to the year 2000 there were no red states or blue states. The color changed each election cycle?
What did we lose by that simple little change? Are we different people? Do we have different goals? Did half of us become the enemy of the other half?
Did you know that prior to the year 2000 there were no red states or blue states. The color changed each election cycle?
What did we lose by that simple little change? Are we different people? Do we have different goals? Did half of us become the enemy of the other half?
No. We are all Americans.
We all want the freedom to succeed. The freedom to raise our children. The chance at a decent life. To give our children a better life than we had. To put our mark on the world.
Somewhere along the way, corporate media, some politicians… They decided that we are easier to control when we’re divided. They’ve manufactured rage, differences, and other trivial matters that keep us apart.
But we’re better when we work together. We can do great things as a nation when we use our differences together in common purpose.
It’s time to look past the lies, look past the outrage, and kick those out that seek to destroy this great experiment where we choose who represent us, and do what is best for the whole country.
Over the next few posts, with some help, I’m going to look back at the past 25 years to understand the ripples that brought us to where we are today.