If my memory serves me correctly, Bill Clinton won the 92' Presidential election with less than 40 percent of the popular vote and in 96' with well less than 50 percent of the popular vote. This just doesn't seem right, but it is the law of the land.

How can a President claim any mandate by the people on his policies, if he gets well less than 50 percent of the popular vote? A President receiving 60 or 70 percent of the votes, can truely make some kind of claim to a mandate; higher percentages would give the newly elected chief executive, an irrefutable public mandate on his policies. Ronald Reagan was in this landslide category, after his second term re-election!

So how can Clinton claim any possible mandate at all, with far less than a majority of votes? How can his Executive Orders carry any weight, when coming from a President not supported by a clear cut majority of the people ( these orders are almost dictatorial in nature )?

He can claim this mandate ( though possibly erroneously ) because of his majority in electoral college votes. Does this really give him a rubber stamp for all of his policies? I don't think so. Also, any perceived mandate, does not include the un-elected First Lady! Did I hear right, that Bill Clinton is going to appoint Hillary to look into the IMF ( after she did such a great job on health care )?

I believe that there should be a run-off election, if one candidate doesn't get a majority of the popular vote. A run-off election, if a candidate doesn't get a majority, just doesn't work with our current electoral college system. This could become a problem, if one candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, but the other gets a majority of electoral college votes ( yes, this has happened before, in the 60s ). The electoral college system is slanted toward the more populus states and urban areas, possibly rightly so. There should be a provision, if a candidate for President doesn't get a majority of both the total electoral college votes and total popular votes, for a run-off election between the two candidates with the most votes ( no write-ins )!

Maybe, his election by only a plurality, is part of President Clinton's problems ( except the ones he has created for himself, by his conduct while in office ). This plurality of votes clearly indicates, that at the time of the election, a majority of voters wanted to elect someone else. At the very least, this indicates that there is absolutely no mandate for his policies. A vocal left-wing minority would obviously argue the opposite ( quite loudly and often, as they have discovered that if you repeat a line enough times, more folks will believe it to be the truth )!

- Bongo ( mandate this... )