Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (181459)	1/23/2004 6:34:52 PM
From: brushwud	Respond to of 1574375

No, the difference is irrelevant. There is no point in squabbling over how many votes the winner got and basing that off of some "mandate" to lead. Every president in American history won that mandate through the Constitutional system of electoral votes. If you don't think that's enough to grant a mandate to lead, you should call for a constitutional amendment which limits the power of presidents that don't win the popular or majority vote. Hear, hear! It also bears pointing out that the greatest president, Lincoln, got the smallest plurality, 39%.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (181459)	1/23/2004 8:07:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574375

Ted, Clinton won the popular vote in both elections; Bush did not. Big difference! No, the difference is irrelevant. There is no point in squabbling over how many votes the winner got and basing that off of some "mandate" to lead. Every president in American history won that mandate through the Constitutional system of electoral votes. You're backpedaling again. By definition, a mandate is an authorization by the people to act. Getting less votes than your opponent is not a mandate. However, Bush acts as if he did get one.......that's my contention. Obviously, he can do that but then, don't be surprised that the country is badly divided. If you don't think that's enough to grant a mandate to lead, you should call for a constitutional amendment which limits the power of presidents that don't win the popular or majority vote. A more appropriate move would be to remove the electoral college. It serves no real purpose any more and can make for very controversial results as in 2000. ted