The question of the day in many circles seems to be whether or not the re-election of George W. Bush to the Presidency provides him with a "mandate," and if so, what is the extent of that "mandate?"  The tv pundits have mull it over, the radio talk show hosts argue back and forth, and the partisans on both sides bicker.  Let's start with the definition of mandate:

1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.

So then, does President Bush, in view of his re-election for a second term, enjoy a command or authorization from the electorate?  Hopefully this time (as opposed to 2000) most everyone will agree that Bush did win the election by receiving a majority of the popular vote as well as a majority of electoral college votes.  If we procede with the assumption that a majority of voters expressed their political preferences and approval by voting for President Bush (we have to make that general assumption as well as the assumption that those who voted for Kerry expressed their disapproval of the President's policies), then we must conclude that the majority of voters support his stated positions and his goals for a second term.  So the question becomes, what level of support does it take to constitute a "mandate?"  Is it mere election, or does it require achievement of a specific number or percentage of votes?  And, does a vote imply agreement, acceptance, or approval of ALL stated politicies and goals or do we need to break down the vote issue by issue?

I will answer the last question first.  It is unlikely that many voters casting their ballots for Bush (or for Kerry for that matter) agree with their candidate on every single issue.  Many voters strongly support Bush on the War on Terrorism, but disagree strongly on social issues, fiscal or economic policy.  But when casting a vote for any political candidate, the voter must consider all the issues, weigh the relative importance of each, and make an informed decision based on their own world view.  The voter could not vote for Bush to be the "President for War and World Affairs" and for Kerry to be the "President for Domestic and Social Policy."  However, while any voter can reserve the right to disagree on any particular issue, when they knowingly cast a vote for a candidate who has stated their positions openly, they cannot come back later and say "hey I didn't vote for you to do that."  A vote is a vote.  It's a package deal.  So when I cast my ballot for President Bush, even though I disagree with him very strongly on immigration and border policy, I cannot now claim that my vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that policy.   I knew his policy before I cast my vote.  I could have voted for another candidate, but chose to give my vote to Bush because I believe overall he was the superior candidate.  So, while a vote may not signify agreement or approval of all the candidate's positions, it does constitute acceptance, or at a minimum acquiesance.

Therefore we have a situation where a) President Bush won the election with a majority of votes; and b) the voters knowingly cast their ballots in acceptance of the President's positions.  Does that majority constitute a "mandate," for the President to implementation of his goals or does a bare majority not provide him with sufficient support to constitute a "mandate?"

In this country we do not say that a candidate needs to have 70% of the vote to win office.  Nor 60%.  Not even 50%.  President Clinton was twice elected to the Presidency without ever garnering the support of even 50% of the voters.  The winner is the candidate who can put together a majority of electoral votes, regardless of the number or precentage of popular vote.  That winning candidate receives an "authorization" from the electorate to govern.  The electorate knowingly voted him into office understanding his policies and goals.  By definition, that "authorization" is a "mandate."

Some political commentators will say that a candidate must receive significantly more than 50% of the vote to receive a "mandate."  Typically 60% or more.  Reaganesque landslides for example.  But who is it that is making that arugment?  Typically it is the losing side, or the media commentators with a preference for or vested interest in the losing side.  When the results are switched, those same people will make the opposite argument. 

So, do I believe President Bush has a mandate for his second term?  Absolutely. Does that mean he will have public support for each and every issue he tackles?  Not at all.  But he won the election, he is entitled to procede on the agenda he set forth in his campaign and do so vigorously.  The Democrats will undoubtedly seek to ambush his plans and derail any significant changes in policy.  It's their right to do so, as they have their own constituency to represent.  Ultimately, if President Bush acts in such a way as to alienate his constituency the Republican party will suffer and lose the next election.  That's our system.

~~ Right Wing Nut Job ~~

I have a hard time arguing with your logic on this one.
I don't think that any president has the mandate, but I first would have to offer a counter definition of mandate as "carte blanc" which is what most people assume he means. Further proof of this is that he states "I have political capital, and I plan to spend it." This is the same illusion and the same power trip. That is interesting on the domestic policy angle, I like Bush's tax cut idea, assuming I understand it correctly, but I do think there is something to be said against his national security policy. I went trough the thing with a red pen, and came up with many very scary points.
Anyhow, great article. I hope you have a good day!

Hey there! You have brought out many great points and I cannot agree more. When a majority of the voters elect a candidate, it means they must agree with what they are doing. That is what it meant to me, anyway. Hope you have good day!

Michael - I understand what you are saying regarding a mandate, but I disagree. I do believe he has the mandate, even with your definition of "carte blanc." The "spoils of war" go to the victor. If people really don't like what he does they can counter it through congress, vote for a Democrat next election, and if Bush goes over the line he could even be impeached.

Blessed Insanity - thanks for reading.

Rightwing, I have reached the same conclusion you have. Considering especially that Bush won the majority of the votes (over 50%, unlike most elections whihc are won somewhere in the 40% range) and that Bush was clear about his intentions for his second term, I think it's more than reasonable that he indeed has a mandate. If Clinton did with his piddly win, certainly Bush has. The truth being that he won the majority, the electoral and popular votes, as well as being over 50%, clearly gives him a mandate.

Good article. I'm going to direct people at my blog to his article of yours.

except characterizing the democtatic process as a war where the minority is silenced is a dangerous precident. I think this is one of the major problems with the democratic elections. The party that wins then feels justified in acting on their whims.
I can agree that this is possible within the structure, that by voting you resign yourself to accepting the outcome. I can also agree to ignore those that couldn't be bothered to go and vote.
But in this context, dosen't it trouble you that we are not considering the strong objections of roughly half of the nation? In terms of long-term stability any moderation that acheived will help balance the nation.
I can see the desire to take advantage of this unique opportunity for the rebulicans, because after 4 more years of war and debt, and bad foreign policy, I am quite sure that it will be awhile before a republican gets elected to office. I don't really own this last statement, but that is what the dem leaders are now saying...

I think matching census data to the results of the election reveals some very interesting things. For instance, there is a direct correlation that has been pointed out by the Boston Globe between the divorce rate per state, and who they voted for, as it turns out, the higher the percentage of people voting for Bush, the higher the divorce rate. That is very interesting considering many people voted based on 'values' and 'morality'. I am still scratching my head about that one, I was a 'values voter' as well, though I value honesty, compassion, and human life.

I am glad that so many people are so interested in IQ, statistical correlations, and their relation to politics. I believe such correlations are increasingly interesting as some candidates this year funneled more money into biased advertising and partisan propaganda than has ever been attempted in the history of the world.

State Avg. IQ 2004
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming

State Avg. IQ 2004
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush

so on average people that voted for kerry are 8 IQ points smarter than those that voted for bush (not a statistically sound conclusion)
I calculate the average IQ by summing and dividing by the states that voted each way
Kerry 104.32
Bush 96.38
Does anyone know what the error of the measure would be on IQ?

Anyhow it is statisticaly similar, but using this statistic you could say that Kerry people are smarter...the same way that you can conclude that Bush has a mandate, the margin is larger here than it is on the Bush victory...
I wonder what the numbers are on those that voted Libertarian, just for fun I will estimate that the average IQ among those voters is 120.

Michael - I did not say that the opposition is silenced. In fact I said they could work through congress to oppose actions of President Bush they believe are misguided. The party that wins is not pushing their "whims." Their positions, policies and goals were stated during the campaign. Would I ignore the "strong objections" of half the nation? Guess it depends on what issue you are referring to, or how strongly those objections are voiced, but in general the answer is "yes." This conversation could veer off to the question of whether an elected official has an obligation to vote (congressman or senator) or act (president) as their constituents suggest (perhaps a poll on every issue? rather inefficient) or whether they are elected to vote or act in a way according to their principles. I believe it is the latter. Although positions on any given issue are important, it is more important that the official vote or act in accordance with their conscience and what they perceive to be the right thing.

As for this IQ stuff, it sounds like more whining from the losers, calling people who vote for Bush to be "stupid." Such childish (and substantiated) behavior will only lead to more votes for Republicans and a greater rejection of liberal elitism. :)

Warning! Warning! Heavy Chevy, who has been kicked out of Bravenet twice for his crude comments and profanities has posted above. He's visiting everyone who ticks him off (Rightwing, you should consider it an honor!). He's posted under "hiya" and "guesswho?" . You can ban him from your site by going into your account, copy and pasting the IP address under either the tag board management or in this entry and go to IP tracing-banning and entering the IP address there.

Coincidentally, I'm a Bush supporter. My IQ is well over the average listed by Heavy Chevy (the numbers are suspect). Not bragging, mind you. I'm sure Michael's is above the averages as well. Is the idea that Republicans are stupid? That being the case, I guess America is stupid. Dumb America! Or should I say, "Sore losers!"

Good points RW! I completely agree. Given a mandate and actually carrying it out to become the law of the land are two different things. In a democratic society, just because you've won doesn't mean you dictate. There are checks and balances (such as the legislative and judicial branches) to account for. Not to mention the people in letting their leaders know where they stand. The President (any President) can be emboldend to carry on his agenda, but in our society, just because he wishes to do so, doesn't make it a given (to the credit of our system of government).

I was just setting up a way to look at elections.
I am sure that everyone has participated in a silent auction. So a canidate is kind of like the winner in a silent auction. They bid by stating their platform. Everyone that votes participates in this auction, regardles of IQ each voter gets one vote. When the final tally is counted there can be only one winner. In this case the winner has property rights over the office in question. The looser being out bid has to respect this decesion. Having decided before hand what the rules are mere participation in the auction is condoning the auction. In this country our rules have both the authority of tradition and the common acceptance of the nation. Each person who casts a ballot is basically saying that they will abide by the outcome. The loosing side therefore has no claim to the office, the mandate comes from winning.
I offer the above as a rational critique of democracy, not as confirmation of its implications, it is just the only way that I can understand the mandate arguments.

also the IQ statistics don't tell you much, first of all the ones in the "smart" states that voted republican could be pulling the average up, and the majority could be "dumb" but vote democratic. Conversely voter participation could be lower in states that have low IQs and therefore the votes of the "dumb" Kerry supporters could have lost to the smarter Bush supporters. We have no way to rigorously draw any conclusions from this evidence, whoever posted might as well have said "red is a bad color"

Good points on the IQ silliness Michael.

The implication of the IQs per state (which frankly I don't buy... I think it's a phony list) is that Bush supporters are stupid. Unfortunately, this is what the left has to do in order to explain their sweeping election loss. They are in such a state of hysterical denial that they grasp for any explanation beside the real one: people are fleeing the empty, angry rhetoric of the Democratic party and moving towards an optimistic, sound message provided by through the Republican party.

That might just be wishful thinking, although I understand why you believe that. There is not much chance that this situation will persist, that is just politics. Lets not try to paint this as a new world order. The situation is a little more complicated than that.
Whoever posted the IQ stuff was a littl more concerned with calling bush dumb than anything else, but the daily mirror also called bush reporters dumb. Let's not forget how many people didn't vote for bush, they voted for the other guy. It is not like it was a small number. I think we will have to make a few more observations before you claim a trend.

Amy I think you are right on. There is a movement ... a trend. Look at the increased number of hispanics that went for Bush, the increased number of jewish voters, more Catholics. These are all groups that the Democrats have relied on to win elections. As groups, they are moving more and more in the direction of the Republicans primarily because the conservativce values of the Republicans match their own values. Yes it's a generality, but there is truth in it.

I think you will have to provide me with a definition of "trend" your use of the word does not mesh with my understanding of that word.
Has anyone looked at war presidents? Who is the last sitting president during a war that got this close to loosing. I mean for pete's sake Roosevelt was elected to a 3rd and 4th term during war.

How about Johnson? He didn't run for re-election, but he was running behind in the polls and would have lost to Nixon probably by a great margin than Humphrey did.

yep, I thought about that one. My conclusion was that it doesn't apply. I could see why you would want to cite that, but it doesn't change the point.

I guess it depends on how you define war. Bush Sr was a war president and lost. The war was over, but just a year or so before losing the election his popularity was around 90%.

It's really irrelevant though. In American politics you either win or lose. The margin is irrelevant. You don't get 52% of the job.

yes, my point exactly. So you really are in a position where we need to explain why bush jr didn't win by more of a margin. I am sure that Karl Rove is asking himself that question, but I don't think that he is going to feel like a failure over it.

Just stuff to think about really, but I don't agree with the mandate idea in its strictest sense.

No - you are missing my point. My point is that it doesn't matter if the winner gets 99% of the vote, or 1 vote more than the other guy. He won. He should pursue his agenda with everything he has and leave it up to the "loyal opposition" to present alternatives.

So you agree with the auction analogy?

Essentially yes, I would agree with your auction analogy, except that I would say it not only has the authority of tradition and common acceptance, but also the force of law.

Whoever posted the IQ thing is just a gullible person who fell for an urban legend:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

The IQ thing is totally fake. Here's proof:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

This guy's credibility is slightly below Dan Rather's.

What credit is due to bush for further polorizing the electorate?
Are we further from the center on both sides than we were before bush?
Is it fair to judge the nation as being further polorized due to the fact that the third party parties are now getting less of a vote than they did say in 1992?

(two possible detractions, one, he won by more of a majority than he "won" with last time; two, Karl Rove certainly bears some responsibility)

I have a very good solution to all this "the nation is divided! It's polaaaaaarrrriiiizeeeedd!!" crap the lefties are talking about.


The libs need to become conservatives. 'Nuff said.

the "divided and polarized" stuff is indeed crap. The people who are saying that need to look at some of the earlier periods of American history. Perhaps they forgot we fought a civil war?

That makes as much sense to me as: I don't need medical attention, just because I severed an artery; there have been plenty of people that have had gaping chest wounds before...

I thought you might like this, didn't know what else to do with it.

Republican from texas (thoughts on mandate)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul218.html

Thanks for the link. Interesting comments from Mr. Paul. However, he is not a Republican. Well, in name only. He tried running as a Libertarian, but of course couldn't get elected, so he switched to the Republican party. This year (2004) he ran against President Bush for the Presidency. It's important to keep that in mind when reading his article.

I don't understand the puritan nature of that remark. Someone isn't a republican until when? Just becuase they run against Bush they aren't a republican? What would it take for Ron Paul to be a republican?

I grant you that his interest in Mises, Rothbard and other libertarian thinkers is clear; but seriously if he was elected as a republican he is a republican. That is at least what the voters of texas thought.