While most Americans sit on the edge of their seats awaiting the final declaration from Tallahassee of who will be the 43rd President of the United States, some distinguished University scholars said the campaign and election process itself may be more important than the actual outcome.
With the results of the national elections hinging upon a few thousand votes in Florida, social scientists said this election will serve as a great topic of study and debate for future Americans.
One of the most likely topics of discussion for the next several months will be the electoral system.
With the strong possibility that Vice President Al Gore will win the popular vote, yet lose the election, some scholars predict that this will cause citizens to question the method by which Americans elect their president.
"I think this may make people rethink the purpose of the Electoral College," said John Transue, a lecturer in political science. "If it were to be abolished, some small states would never be visited. States like California and New York would receive the overwhelming attention."
While scholars agree that the validity of the Electoral College will be called into question, Assistant Professor of Political Science Scott De Marchi, an elections and campaign strategy expert, said any change would be extremely
Many professors said this year's presidential election will go down in history for its closeness, but others predicted that its legacy will lie elsewhere.
"I think 100 years from now this campaign will be remembered because of the gross corrupting effect of money on the election," said american presidential history expert Alex Keyssar, professor of history.
Over $500 million in soft money was spent during this year's campaign, and some analysts estimate that over $1 billion was spent on television advertising. In the last week of the election alone, over $100 million was spent to encourage voters to go to the election booths.
De Marchi conceded that the amount of money spent will be one thing remembered about this election but said the way the money was spent will also serve as an important lesson for future campaigns.
"From now on, I think [candidates] will always second-guess [themselves] every time they spend money in one place as opposed to another," De Marchi said. "The question won't be how the money is spent, but where."
With the United States currently in one of the longest peace-time economic booms, scholars said the outcome of the presidential election may ultimately be inconsequential.
Some experts said that America's prosperity will not give either leader the opportunity to become a truly great or memorable president.
"Whoever is elected will be caught in the historical blur of the post-Reagan era," Keyssar said. "They'll be as remembered as William Henry Harrison."
And associate professor of political science Paul Gronke agreed. "Some unexpected crisis could possibly allow one of these figures to come forth and earn their place in history," Gronke said. "But whoever comes in as the winner is likely to be just a place-keeper."
Immediately, both Gore and Bush could experience similar problems. Associate Professor of Political Science Peter Feaver said that either Bush or Gore will experience a difficult transition to power and will have to struggle to make any effective early change.
"The new president may find that he is like the dog that has been chasing the car. As hard as it was to chase it down, doing something with the presidency may even be harder," Feaver said. "The transition from campaigning to governing is always difficult, but given the way the race shaped up, it will be especially difficult this time."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.