GW's Election... help please?

[Dracon II]

I said keep the ammo coming!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

This may confuse matters more than clarifying them; if so, ignore it. But...

In US political parlance, having a mandate generally implies two things are true:

1) The candidate not only won, but one by a significant margin
2) The differences between the two candidates were clear and significant, so that the vote could be interpreted as a clear endorsement of one candidate's ideas over the others.

By this criteria, very few 20th-century Presidents have had mandates: FDR, Johnson, Reagan, and maybe Nixon (in his second term) and Harding would probably be it. Bush-Gore satifies neither of these criteria; not only was the election incredibly close (and, as had been pointed out, Bush lost the popular vote), but Bush and Gore both hewed so close to the middle that they were barely distinguishable from each other.

Also, since you're not from the US, it's worth knowing that GW is not the first president who failed to come out on top of the popular vote. It's happened in at least three other elections: JQ Adams (1824), Hays (1876), and Harrison (1888). All of these presidents are regarded as failures, and all served only one term.

[Dracon II]

thanks Rufus

[yavoon]

Re: Re: GW's Election... help please?

Originally posted by GePap


The most obvious piece of info is that He lost the popular vote. IN the US vote count in each state are used to determine which candidate gets the state's electoral votes: whomever gets a majority above 270 is the winner. Now, the issue is that one can win the election without having being the choice of the larger part of the population, due to the fact that in some areas one vote is 'worth more' as it were. You can always say that legitimacy (and a mandate) stem from the support of the people: since Bush failed to win the popular vote, and won the electoral college vote by a tiny margin in the state of florida among questions about how voting proceded there, you can state that that means he failed in 2000 to get a mandate from the people (if yes from the system).

I guess that'd work. but what about the electoral college? is he just going to morally say that it "shouldn't" be that way?

[Zkribbler]

If I were you I'd make a two-pronged argument.

First, George W. didn't win the popular vote, just the majority of electors--and the electorial colleges system in the US favors small rural (conservative) states.

Second, there were voting irregularities in a state with a lot of electorial votes--Florida. People here have already mentioned the fraudulent mail-in votes. But there was also the incidents of many African-American voters (traditionally pro-Democrats) who showed up to vote but were turned away become records incorrectly showed they were convicted felons. And there was the unlawfully designed ballots which confused a lot of voters into voting for Buchanan when they really wanted to vote for Gore.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And there was the unlawfully designed ballots which confused a lot of voters into voting for Buchanan when they really wanted to vote for Gore.

Technically, the ballot design was just stupid, not illegal.

You should also mention the conflict of interest that attended the Bush victory:

1) Kathleen Harris, Florida's Secretary of State and the woman responsible for certifying the election, was also Bush's Florida campaign chairman.

2) Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas both had children employed by the Bush campaign. Judicial ethics would seem to demand that, when the Florida recount case came before the Supreme Court, they recuse themselves from the case because of the potential conflict of interest. Neither did. If they had, the vote would have been 4-3 in favor of continuing the recount rather than 5-4 against (and crowning George king).

BTW, Michael Moore's Stupid White Men has a great, totally one-sided discussion of the Florida debacle. I'd never suggest it as a source for objective information, but it would be a great source of arguments in this kind of debate.

[DanS]

Except that legitimacy in the US electoral system doesn't stem from the popular vote, it stems from the electoral vote count - so it doesn't matter that Gore got more votes than Bush (unless one wants to argue that the system itself isn't legitimate.)

Yes, this is very much the truth. Clinton won an absolute majority of the electors, even though he had only 43% of the vote or whatever in '92, which is what is important in our system. If there is not a majority of the electors, eventually the president is elected by the Congress. All of this is very legitimate.

What Rufus said is also important to note. Legitimacy and a mandate are closely linked in American presidential politics, considering that the American president has few powers other than what he can persuade people to give him due to his prestige.

[Drake Tungsten]

Nevermind.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why can't you lot organise an election or govern yourselves properly?

It isn't hard. Perhaps we should send UN observers to the next election.

Funny, considering that in general the US has some of the smoothest transitions between leaders in the world.

Forgetting the 'w' key

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Steady on.

I'd settle for well run and transparent elections, campaign finance reform and proportional representation.

That would fix all your (and our) problems. It'd be the end of the GOP too.

sure it would

[Flubber]

While I dislike the US electoral system, we have to accept that the candidates ( and many voters) are aware of the system and it affects behaviors.

If a candidate sees polls that they are going to lose a large state, say 65 %-35%, they focus less on that state. Their gains in terms of absolute votes might be greater if they campaigned hard there ( as opposed to other states) but the reality is that losing a state is losing a state. Its easy to construct hypotheticals where a person could win the presidency while getting absolutely trounced in the popular vote. Win enough states narrowly and lose the ones you lose HUGE.

As to the debate, its obvious that you really have only two possible avenues

1. Attack the Bush election specifically based on the events that occurred in that specific election. There are a number of irregularities and the bottom line argument here is that you are essentially saying that Gore won the election. Your opponent should expect this as this is the obvious avenue of attack.

2. Attack the American electoral system in its entirety and use the Bush election as an example. Basically you could argue that the system itself does not always result in "legitimate" winners. This argument is not as dependent on irregularities as it is on the premise that some things that may not be legitimate even if they are legal. Admit the legality of the system but put forth a definition of legitimacy that the system will not meet.

The benefit of argument 2 is that it is less likely that your opponent would be as prepared if you hit him with a couple of quotes regarding legitimacy in democracies. Put him in the position of trying to defend the electoral college. You concede that it is the legal system and therefore LEGALLY legitimate but go for argument related to legitimacy in democratic theory. Political science arguments comparing proportional representation versus first past the post systems have such arguments.

Depending on time constraints, you could argue both ways. personally I like the second argument as you can likely define the terms of the argument. Unless your opponent is well prepared, they will not have enough ammunition to rebut your methods of defining legitimacy.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem is, all the opponent has to prove is that it was electorally legitimate.

The problem is, that's almost undoubtably true.