Mandate for Me But Not for Thee:
People for the American Way Press Release in 2008, after Democratic President Elect Barack Obama defeats Republican John McCain by a 53-46 margin:
UDPATE: Some commenters seem to believe this post is unfair, because everybody is prone to this sort of hyperbole — especially advocacy groups. To be clear, the point of the post is just that: This was just an early example of the shift in arguments that we're all supposed to make now that the Presidency is set to change.
Also, a few readers argue that there really is a dramatic difference between the two election outcomes. First, some readers argue that the test for whether there is a "mandate from the people" is electoral college outcome, not the popular vote; I respond to that here. Second, some argue that a doubling of the size of the gap is really dramatic; the difficulty is that if you look historically at the differences, the two sets of outcomes are not so far from each other; the doubling of a small number is still relatively small given the range of outcomes in elections. Of course, Obama won soundly, especially at the electoral college; it wasn't a close election. But I don't think the difference justifies the rhetoric of the press releases, which was the point of the post.
Looking at yesterday’s results, it’s incontrovertible that the election delivered a sweeping mandate for President-elect Obama . . .People for the American Way Press Release in 2005, after Republican President George W. Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry by a 51-48 margin:
Clearly, President Bush, who won a narrow victory and leads a divided nation, has no mandate . . .A 53-46 margin isn't exactly the same as a 51-48 margin. But still, I think I see a pattern.
UDPATE: Some commenters seem to believe this post is unfair, because everybody is prone to this sort of hyperbole — especially advocacy groups. To be clear, the point of the post is just that: This was just an early example of the shift in arguments that we're all supposed to make now that the Presidency is set to change.
Also, a few readers argue that there really is a dramatic difference between the two election outcomes. First, some readers argue that the test for whether there is a "mandate from the people" is electoral college outcome, not the popular vote; I respond to that here. Second, some argue that a doubling of the size of the gap is really dramatic; the difficulty is that if you look historically at the differences, the two sets of outcomes are not so far from each other; the doubling of a small number is still relatively small given the range of outcomes in elections. Of course, Obama won soundly, especially at the electoral college; it wasn't a close election. But I don't think the difference justifies the rhetoric of the press releases, which was the point of the post.
that you are a leading apologist for many (though not all) of the lawless and radical Bush policies of the last eight years?
It's not an "accusation of bias." Rather, it's a follow-up to my post yesterday about how advocates have to switch sides now; this was an early example of the trend, and I thought it was pretty funny.
Loophole,
I think mandates come from the voters, not the electoral representatives, so I would think the popular vote.
But it isn't exactly hypocritical to say that a victory that is double the magnitude of another significant victory represents a much greater mandate.
IMO, a mandate ought to come from broad-based support of the populace . . .
However, I also don't think that this is a "mandate". This is a bunch of Republicans who are rage-voting; they're mad as hell and they're not gonna take it anymore! They're gonna vote Democrat, just ta show 'em! Pretty soon they'll wake up and realize that Obama won, and that they helped, and that now we're in for a wild ride.
Note that I am not saying that the two are the same. As best I can tell, 6-7 percent is greater than 3 percent, which is greater than 2 %, which is greater than 1%, which is greater than .5%, For that matter, 20% is greater than 15%, which is greater than 12%, which is greater than 10%, which is greater than 7%. I hope that you all will agree with me so far on that. But in a historical sense, the gap between 3 and 6-7 percent isn't all that big: It seems sort of odd to say that the line between the two is the line between clearly having zero mandate and incontrovertibly having a sweeping mandate.
We're nothing if not inconsistent.
The gap between winning by one state and winning by nearly 200 electoral votes is pretty massive. This accusation of hypocrisy is a total stretch.
1980 -- 10%, Reagan over Carter
1984 -- 18%, Reagan over Mondale
1988 -- 8%, Bush over Dukakis
1992 -- 5%, Clinton over Bush
1996 -- 9%, Clinton over Dole
If 6-7% yesterday was clearly a sweeping mandate, were all of these elections also clearly sweeping mandates? (I suppose 1984 was such a mandate that PFAW would just give up and not oppose Reagan's selections. . . ;-) )
I disagree with that, given recent election results. Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote since LBJ, and it's a major shift from the 50-50 landscape we've seen for the past eight years.
Yes, this is not 1932. No 61% majority. But it's not 1932 in a lot of other ways either. Given changes in technology, campaign fundraising and spending, and the electorate, it's unlikely that we'll see another 1932 in the near future.
The bottom line is that it's a big win. Four years ago, President Bush claimed a "mandate" with a narrow win decided by roughly 40,000 votes in Ohio. It's more than reasonable for Obama's supporters to say he didn't have a mandate then and that they have a mandate now.
The last two times that happened -- 1980 and 1992 -- the winning parties claimed a mandate and governed accordingly.
(I know the Republicans didn't control the House in 1980, but with Reagan's popularity and the conservatism of many Dems in Congress, they effectively had some level of control there for a time.)
On the one hand, yes, PAW is surely being a little disingenuous, though you can hardly expect better from a political advocacy group. And it doesn't hurt to make fun of them for it. But, at the same time, you open yourself up to some easy responses:
1. A 6-7% margin is almost double a 3% margin. And whether it is big or not depends on context.
2. Moreover, the popular vote percentage is not the only measure in play. It is a prefectly respectable argument that the key thing in a presidential contest is the electoral vote margin. (I happen to disagree with it, but if you want to rely on the popular vote as an assessment of presidential legitimacy, please sign the petition for an amendment to abolish the electoral college first.) And by electoral vote margin, a 364-173 victory is pretty lopsided.
Bush beat Kerry in 2004 by 34 electoral votes and several states. It was a 3% win in the popular vote, as Kerr noted. It was the 2000 election where Gore won the popular vote and lost in the electoral college because of Florida.
I'm sure everyone from Professor Kerr to People for the American Way agree that 2000 did NOT demonstrate a mandate for Bush.
Volokh Conspiracy on Nov 5th, 2008
.... ok, maybe not as dramatic as People for the American way, but the two are quite different.
Also notable, if you skim the archives the lack of partisan hackery in 2004 is notably less.
Oh, how times have changed.
I have addressed the first point in the comment thread already, I think. I'd be very curious to hear if you find my response persuasive.
As for he second point, it seems notably weak to me. It seems to me that it changes the topic from (a) whether there is a "mandate" to govern to (b) what is "key" to the election. I absolutely agree that the key to getting elected is the electoral college: The electoral college can generate very lopsided victories even if the popular vote cuts the other way (even if the losing side had more votes). But I tend to think of a "mandate" as referring to a "popular mandate", that is, an endorsement or preauthorization from "the people" to take a set of steps. It seems to me that this is pretty naturally rooted in the popular vote, as the popular vote actually reflects the votes of "the people" who could supply a popular mandate. For example, it seems odd to me to say that a candidate who overwhelming won the electoral college vote but lost the popular vote actually had a "mandate" from the people.
* Traditionally what do we get......55, maybe 60% of the eligible voters participating in a presidential election.(?)
* And of that 55-60%, the winner generally garners somewhere between 51-55% of the popular vote.
So in reality, 55% of the 60% of voters who participate(being generous w/ both %'s) have declared approval/preference for a candidate........which amounts to what....~30% (give or take) of all citizens of voting age.
How *any* candidate can declare a 'mandate' for governing when FAR less than even a simple majority have voiced, by way of their vote, approval of said candidate......well, it's just totally beyond me.
2004: Bush-286 Kerry-252
2008: Obama-349 McCain-163
It's about twice a much, not that you are an apologist for anybody or anything.
Flashback, Nov 3, 2004 video transcript:
You should ask Mr. Cheney his opinion on this year's election. In 2008, did the nation respond by giving President-elect Obama a mandate?
I think I see a pattern here myself.
Yes, exactly -- that's the point of the post.
So what percentage popular vote win is a mandate? And why shouldn't that number vary by context?
It seems to me that every election is different. Some have third parties. Some have incumbents. To do a real comparison, you need to look only at elections in which neither candidate is an incumbent. Even holding those facts constant, the question of mandate just seems entirely circumstance-dependent.
The fact that a liberal black man won by 6-7 points, winning states that Dems haven't won in decades, is a very strong victory. It just isn't the same as winning by a few points in an electoral college squeaker.
I think reasonable people can disagree about whether it rises to the level of mandate. I don't think reasonable people can argue that the degree of victory is the same as 2004.
For the love of Pete. You clearly do not read this blog very often. Orin is not an apologist for anyone. He presents his analysis and comments on a lot of issues, and as far as I can tell, pisses off both teams as well as those who haven't picked a side.
He can defend himself, but that is just a blatant ad hominem that has no basis in fact and I'm touchy today.
It's about twice a much, not that you are an apologist for anybody or anything.
</blockquote>
Outside of any context, maybe doubling is a big difference. But, "in a historical sense," the difference between 3 and 6% is not very significant, at least not enough to make one a clear mandate and the other not. Analogously, the significance of doubling 2 degrees centigrade depends on context. For certain experiments, it matters quite a bit. For weather purposes, it does not.
Obama received 349 electoral votes, compared to Bush's 286.
The Dem's gained 18 seats in the House in 2008, compared to the GOP's 3 in 2004.
It's hard to quantify a mandate (and it's not like Bush needed a mandate to engage in vigorous executivizing), but the differences in degree here at least colorably add up to a difference in kind.
The USS Jesusland is sinking, and the rats are looking for the life jackets.
Sheesh.
Bush in 2004 doesn't look all that good when you compare him with other incumbents who won reelection. Indeed, of every incumbent who ran for reelection in the post WW2 era, the only ones who did worse than him, as far as i can tell, are the ones who lost.
However, if the popular vote in one state, Ohio, had gone the other way, Kerry would have won the electoral college. I'm sure that's what people mean when they say 2004 was decided by one state.
The Republicans control the Executive Branch until January 20, 2009, noon Eastern Standard Time. I hope that between now and then, they will govern with the best interests of Americans in mind.
Democrats do control both houses of Congress, but even with the election pick-ups, will fall short of 60 votes in the Senate required to close debate. Bipartisan support will continue to be necessary to get legislation passed.
Meanwhile, over at One First St. NE, the Supreme Court has a majority that are ideologically in the Republican camp, regardless of who appointed them. This majority is likely to remain for awhile, as the members seeming to be closest to retirement are not the ones in the Republican camp.
In any event, Democrats in Congress and in the incoming Obama-Biden administration are going to be aware that they do not have the advantage that George W. Bush had, which was Karl Rove. Karl Rove had a magical ability to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, from mid-2000 to mid-2006, to eke out victories. Lacking Karl Rove, the Democrats know they will be judged (at best) on the merits, so they had damn well better deliver for all, not just for their base. And they will!
Sort of off-topic, but there are some interesting demographic notes in that map. Note, for example, the deep red on the Louisiana Gulf Coast. Might this be due to the population shift in the New Orleans area post-Katrina? Also, I'm assuming that the one dark red spot in Colorado is Colorado Springs, although I'm not sure. This would jive with observer's reports that basically the only competent McCain ground office was in Colorado Springs. Finally, look at the Southwest and Miami-Dade. Gone are the days of Rove and Bush from 2000 where the Republican Party was making genuine inroads into the Latino community. This is especially ironic given McCain's stance on immigration--and many of these states (NM, FL, CO) could have been crucial tipping points. Perhaps, with hindsight being 20-20, McCain might have been better abandoning the base (especially given the "locked-in" nature of support in Appalachia) and heavily targeted groups like Hispanics that may have been able to deliver those states?
What the winners do with that mandate will determine whether this election ushers in a new era of Democratic dominance or triggers a backlash that puts the Republicans back in power quickly. And that will be determined by the voters after the fact, not by a bunch of commenters on a blog before anyone takes office.
2. Guttural?????
This country is still unfortunately, frustratingly and illogically split down the middle. The fact that 5 million Californians would vote to make gay marriage UNCONSTITUIONAL when it has nothing to do with their personal lives, while 4.8M other Californians would vote against such a ban strikes me as insane.
Whatever. The country is split. No one has a mandate. The Dems and Obama should try to enact whatever measures they want. If they work (which I think they will), the country will be less split. If they don't, see you in 4 years
As I mentioned in the post, I don't think the electoral college is a particularly good way to select a president. But note that the logical implication of your position is either (1) we should elect presidents by a method that confers no legitimacy upon them, in which case "wither democracy"; or (2) we should abolish the electoral college. I do not understand you to be endorsing either position, but it seems unavoidable that the choice must be made. And I do not remember many conservatives decrying the unfairness of the electoral college in 2000 or President Bush's lack of legitimacy from losing the popular vote; though I do not remember if you took any position at all at the time.
"The USS Jesusland is sinking, and the rats are looking for the life jackets."
You'd better. I'm thinking that Obama won't have much need for haters on his boat.
I didn't vote for him, but I'll give him a chance. Let's see how he does before we start on the guy.
Really, the best political capital you can have is the ability to inspire the public. Kennedy won a close election and was a minority president, yet created the Peace Corps and set us on the path to the moon.
n.
1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.
3.
a. A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory.
b. A region under such administration.
4. Law
a. An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
b. A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.
tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation of public schools.
One of the things at really annoys me about political discourse in general is the constant arguments over words without a common understanding of the definitions thereof. Mandate, socialism, etc. It especially bothers me here on VC since you guys are lawyers, for the most part, and should be careful about such things.
So by definition 2, victory = mandate.
As best I could tell, PFAW was the first to issue a statement on the issue: Have you found examples on other side already? Or is your view that I should have waited until I found an example on the other side before investing the substantial time and energy of a blog post on it?
Really?
That's not quite what you said.
Further,
But hey, 3%, 3%!!!
You mean except for President Clinton who did not reach 50% of the popular in 1996 (49.2%), right?
I'd post the definition of "Landslide" but I hear the black helicopters approac[^z]
No, I don't. 1996 was a 3-way race, so you can't compare Clinton's share of the popular vote with Bush's in a 2-way race. Clinton got a much larger share of the 2-party vote and a much larger electoral majority in 1996 than Bush did in 2004.
If one takes a democratic standpoint and allocates the electoral votes according to popular %, Obama gets 282 and McCain 246, hardly a mandate. But then I haven't seen a REAL mandate for a very long time.
Regardless, we still have a large portion of the folks not voting in every election.
Politics is designed to obfuscate the truth.
A little Mencken:
Um, Ralph Nader ran in 2004.
Clinton got a much larger share of the 2-party vote and a much larger electoral majority in 1996
He did no such thing.
By the way, how did Clinton do with Congress in 1996?
Are you some kind of spoof? Clinton got about 54% of the 2-party vote in 1996, while Bush got about 51% of the 2-party vote in 2004. Ross Perot got 8.7% of the vote in 1996, while Ralph Nader got 0.38% of the vote in 2004 (third party candidates combined for about 1% of the vote).
Not only didn't you vote for him, but IIRC, you opposed him pretty aggressively. In fact, my quick and dirty impression is that you're the most extreme Obama opponent I've seen make this kind of statement here. For that I sincerely compliment and congratulate you.