From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King (the Dodger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:51:49 GMT

In article <BxC07E.HuC@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.160945.18312@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>>In article <Bx7x0C.Hx1@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>>
>>>
>>
>>you act as if this is uncommon. you must have slept thru american history.
>>let me fill you in a bit.
>
>I did not claim that it was uncommon...  I just like to point out that
>6 of 10 people voted AGAINST Clinton when someone uses the word
>"landslide" when referring to Clinton's election, or that Clinton was
>preferred by a majority of the people.
>

Actually, between 56-57% of the voters voted for a candidate 
other than Clinton.  The election was not a referendum on 
Clinton.  A vote for Bush, Perot, Marrou (look, a carrot for
Libertarians), or whoever is not necessarily a vote against 
Clinton.  I could argue (quite easily) that most votes for Perot
cannot be interpreted as votes against Clinton.   Perot had
no chance of winning.  So, a vote for Perot was a vote FOR
Perot.  If a voter was AGAINST Clinton, that voter's only 
real choice was Bush - who, at least, had a chance (however
slight) of winning.

>
>>1) there is no requirement that the president of the us win 50%+ of the 
>>popular vote.
>
>There should be... Well, if there are 2 candidates then there should be.
>If there are three, then the requirement should be 33.3%, etc...
>

Every presidential election in my life has had more than three 
candidates. Under this percentage scheme (the requirement for
President is 33.3% of the vote) we would have had 2 presidents
for my entire life.  (Imagine the fights for office space!)

>>
>>2) many presidents, inlcuding abe lincoln, have been elected and served
>>successfully without this majority. in fact, at least one race (the date
>>escapes me) ended with the popular vote winner losing the election.
>
>Anyone better in history remember the date?  I don't either...
>

Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote in 1888, but won the 
electoral vote against then-sitting president Grover Cleveland.
(I think this happened in another election in the late 18th
century, but I can't remember.)

Andrew Jackson won a large plurality (possibly even a majority) 
of the popular vote and a plurality in the electoral
college.  The election was, thus, thrown into the House 
of Representatives who voted for John Quincy Adams.
(It was called the "dirty deal" - because the third candidate,
Henry Clay, threw his support to Adams and became Sect. 
of State under Adams.)  This was 1824.

>>3) we do not vote as individuals, we vote as states.
>
>And that is wrong.  This is supposed to be a democracy, and every 
>individual should have a say in who is elected pres, and not have their
>say taken away and given to the winning candidate of the state.
>

The United States is a republic form of government.  It is not
a direct democracy.  (Elements of direct democracy exist.  For
instance, in California, we have the initiative process.  Spend
some time here and you'll learn how imperfect that is.)

>
>>   the overwhelming majority of states voted for clinton.
>>   a small minority of states, mostly low-population states in the plains,
>>   voted for bush. therefore, bush has been soundly defeated in his
>>   re-election bid.
>
>He has been soundly defeated only by the electoral college, which 
>obviously does not accurately represent the views of the population.

But, it does express a concensus within each state.  Now, aren't
the Republicans the guys behind the "New Federalism" which is
supposed to give more power to the states.  How your state
chooses to select its delegates is the business of your state.
(Note, though, that the power of a state is increased if a 
winner-take-all vote is used.)

John D.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13298 alt.politics.clinton:16007 alt.politics.elections:22810