- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No such thing. They have to be programmed by people, whom are partisan by nature.
This is exactly why we should have a nonpartisan computer program draw up the districts every ten years.
It shouldn't be hard to design something fairly nonpartisan (i.e. where the House popular vote approximately mirrors the number of seats each party gets):
- Districts should be contiguous and as square-shaped as possible.
- No consideration should be given for the demographic composition of the area, nor for the residences of specific people.
- A computer draws up 9 different maps. Each party gets to eliminate the 4 that they dislike the most. Whatever is left is the new district map.
Over 300 electoral college votes is a landslide. He did it twice. Bush never even got 300. And of course Bush lost the popular vote to Gore.
You do realize that we elect president by an electoral college, don't you?
NEXT!
There's no more such a thing as a "popular vote" for the House as there is for the President. :lamo
It is HILARIOUS that you'd argue otherwise, and that you'd argue "popular vote" to claim he has a mandate AT ALL when his vote was a hair over 50%.
Whining about "gerrymandering" is no different from whining that all 55 of CA's electoral votes go to Obama.
But it's amazing how one can be a sore winner and a sore loser at the same time.
Obviously there is a popular vote for both, simply consisting of the vote total. Are you being a reality denier here, or what?
Otherwise, folks seem to be confusing a mandate with carte blanche. Not the same thing. Mandate simply means, "an authorization to act given to a representative." As a rule the winner of the election has a mandate to carry out his or her platform. It simply means that the winning side's platform should be given a little more deference than the losing side's platform in recognition of the people's choice.
As I said, some argued that the presidential mandate was canceled out by the House mandate, but that argument doesn't hold much water.
Even by your own definition above, the Republican majority being re-elected gives them the same legislative mandate that Obama's re-election gives him an executive mandate. Only hackery says one but not the other.
And they are equally meaningful for both types of elections, i.e., they're NOT what directly determines the outcome. Are YOU "denying" that? There are 435 separate elections for the House, not one big one. THAT is the "reality" that you're seeking to "deny" here.
That's a predictably self-serving definition of "mandate," and quite counter to how it's normally understood, which I don't have to tell you involves a healthy, clear majority of the vote, not some squeaker margin.
Even by your own definition above, the Republican majority being re-elected gives them the same legislative mandate that Obama's re-election gives him an executive mandate. Only hackery says one but not the other.
I think they are different in that EVERYONE can vote for the president
You don't vote for the President. You vote for your state's slate of Electors. 51 separate elections.
You don't vote for the President. You vote for your state's slate of Electors. 51 separate elections.
And of course I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, it is instructive.
Better drop a note to Merriam-Webster, because it's their definition. Mandate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Except that's exactly my point. More people voted for the Democrat for president and more people voted for the Democrats in the House. IMO the only time the winner of an election really has no mandate is when he loses the popular vote.
That's funny, because I could have sworn that I filled in the box next to Barack Obama -- not Sam Sausagehead the delegate.
Oh, what, you're claiming ignorance of the process now? I shouldn't be surprised.
Over 300 electoral college votes is a landslide. He did it twice. Bush never even got 300. And of course Bush lost the popular vote to Gore.
You do realize that we elect president by an electoral college, don't you?
NEXT!
Yes, you do vote for the president, your vote just doesn't get the president elected. Hence the popular vote.
The only ignorant thing is you claiming that people don't vote for the president. They do.
No. You vote for a slate of electors. Different electors are chosen based on the outcome.
As is the hairs-breadth margin of the presidential "popular vote."
Please. This refers only to giving someone authority to hold the office, not to enact policy. Hmmm. Maybe you actually DON'T know what's commonly meant by an electoral "mandate." I doubt that very much, though.
No; Cogress isn't singular. People voted their representatives back into office. By your definition, each representative has a separate mandate.
So when you voted there wasn't a selection for president and vice president? Like I said YES, you do vote for the president, your vote just doesn't elect them.
You are electing the people who elect the President. Each state does this separately, thus, 51 separate elections.
This is the congressional equivalent of a president winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?