In saying this, you seem to express the opinion that I've missed something crucial. Would you like to explain what that is?
If anything, I should think that having seen the express popular will set at naught, by the actions of a few professional gerrymanderers, would add even more point to my analysis.
You could take the outcome as indication that the popular will is always thwarted -- I'm not here to convince you otherwise, and your wording indicates you are up on the soapbox (Augean stables, really?). There's no outer bound to cynicism.
My interpretation is that a thousand votes in Florida would have swung the election, so Florida voters and abstainers were quite powerful indeed.
Often it's hard to tell for sure which election will be like that. The California ballot propositions (where I live) are an excellent example.
I'm not terribly much in favor of mob rule in the first place, but even if I were, it wouldn't further enamor me to see events like the result of the 2000 election. Yes, a relative few voters in Florida found themselves, by accident of history, in possession of political power far outstripping what their numbers would suggest, but given that no one can either plan for or expect such historical accidents, how can they possibly benefit anyone who desires either political power or predictable government? (If predictability isn't considered a cardinal virtue of government, I'm not sure why it isn't.)
And, yes, Augean stables, really. Call it soapboxing if you like, but I'm hardly the only one to express a similar opinion of Baltimore city politics.
