JBC: Im not sure I follow you. But let me see if I can parse your message. Bush wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote, but because he has a larger percentage of the total than Clinton, by MY definition Clinton did not have a mandate.
There are a couple of things here. Let's summarize the situation right now.
1. Bush is losing in the electoral college. That means he has fewer electoral votes than Gore.
2. Bush is losing the popular vote. That means he has fewer votes than Gore.
3. I said nothing about Clinton. But lets look at his last race:
In 1996 Clinton received 47,402,357 votes or 49.42% of the vote. Dole had 39,198,755, or 40.71%; Perot had 8,085,402, or 8.4 percent. Clinton won the popular and electoral vote.
Right now, Bush has 49,200,915 votes, according to CNN, or 48 percent of the vote. He is losing the popular vote and the electoral vote.
As far as I know -- correct me if Im wrong -- 49.42% is a larger percentage than 48%.
Bush has received more total votes than Clinton, which you didn't say, but obviously is true.
On the other hand, Clinton is not on the ballot. Would you accept an argument that Clinton had a greater mandate than Reagan (who received a measly 43,904,153 in 1980) because he got more votes? I doubt it.
The only point I am making here is that, should he prevail in Florida and become the next president, Bush would have no "mandate" from the electorate. In fact, an enormous percentage of the country would consider a Bush Administration fraudulent. He would have to overcome that before he can even begin even to consider re-election, let alone any "mandate." M2 |
