Who Will Win The Election

[Socrates]

8 minutes ago, Amppax said:

You're far too knowledgeable about politics to try to claim you don't understand what I'm saying. 

I'm not really that knowledgeable.  People talk about this "mandate" all the time (as in whether or not a particular president got enough votes for a "mandate"), but it never really made sense to me.  It doesn't appear to be in the Constitution.

The President, no matter who he may be, or by what margin he won, has exactly no more and no less powers than the U.S. Constitution grants to his office.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Socrates

[Gabriela]

The way the media use the word "mandate" I always understood it to mean: "the power to push through reforms with reasonable support and without excessive resistance".

Someone who can get stuff done because people feel he's legitimately in office and isn't trying to be unfair to their side and so will cooperate with him—that guy has a mandate.

Someone who can't get stuff done because people hate his guts for whatever reason and so block his every move just to block him—that guy has no mandate.

[truthfinder]

9 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

The way the media use the word "mandate" I always understood it to mean: "the power to push through reforms with reasonable support and without excessive resistance".

Someone who can get stuff done because people feel he's legitimately in office and isn't trying to be unfair to their side and so will cooperate with him—that guy has a mandate.

Someone who can't get stuff done because people hate his guts for whatever reason and so block his every move just to block him—that guy has no mandate.

I think your first example (after the definition) is probably closer to the meaning used most rather than your last. At least in Canada, a leader who has a majority government is often said to have a mandate.  Also used in the sense that people whole-heartedly agree with the platform aims and therefore should go full-steam-ahead in pursuing them. 

[Luigi]

As a verb, "to mandate" means "to issue an order; to command." As a noun, "a mandate" is the order that was issued. Actions speak louder than words, but words speak more clearly than actions. So electoral mandates carry a lot of force, but they're not always interpreted clearly because the people don't use any words when they cast their votes. 

In politics, a mandate is an electoral victory so convincing that the winner interprets it as a command from the voters to pursue his agenda as stated in the campaign. The clearest example, and the most famous recent use of the word, was Richard Nixon in 1972; he won 60.7% of the popular vote and carried every state in the Union except Massachusetts (and Washington DC) - 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17 electoral votes. In his victory speech on election night, he said something like, "We have a mandate from the people." 

By that standard, Trump does not have a mandate:

1. He lost the popular vote (47.5% to 47.7% - admittedly by only .2%,  225,000 or so votes out of about 120 million votes cast, and I'm not sure the numbers on the electoral maps include Arizona, Michigan, or New Hampshire; 

2. He didn't win a majority of the popular vote; even if Clinton had won, she would have had only a plurality at best; 

3. Although there's a difference of 74 electoral votes between Trump and Clinton, she was only 38 votes from victory - if one or two swing states had gone in her favor, she would have won;

4. She carried 19 states (38% of them) and the District of Columbia; 

5. Third party candidates probably drained more votes from Clinton than from Trump so if the third parties weren't on the ballot, Clinton probably would have won; the six-million-plus third party votes further undermine the concept that Trump has a mandate from the people;.

If anyone got a mandate from the people, it was the Republican party, by maintaining a majority-Republican Senate and House of Representatives, and choosing a Republican president. The way I read this 'mandate' is: We don't want Clinton, but we're not crazy about the non-traditional Republican Trump, either; we'll put him in the White House and give him a chance, but the traditional-Republican House and Senate need to rein him in.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Luigi

[Guest]

[Anomaly]

Mandate, shandate.  Trump won the Presidency via our electoral system, just as the previous Presidents I've voted for (or for their opponents) have.  B Obama, W Bush, B Clinton, H Bush, R Regan, J Carter all were President of the United States and had a job to do, along with Congress. 

It wasn't a sport contest just to win a race. It was a campaign to get voted to perform a job for the Nation for four years. 

Not a single President of the USA was unanimously elected by the citizens.  Ever.  

With the electorate's hope in their promises and ideas to do better or continue achievements of the predecessors, these politicians have a job to do. The US cycles between parties and political ideologies and politicians.  Like all human endeavors, it isn't perfect. But it works pretty well.  We do get elections every two years to replace some of them. 

[ardillacid]

Our children will thank us for the abundance of memes.