Politics again. Can someone explain the concept of a mandate?

[carlimac]

I'm just not getting it. To me it's sounding like the people expect an elected official to keep to his rhetorical campaign promises even if they are stupid (strike that) less than sound and wise ideas.

[skippy740]

The mandate is dependant upon which side you're listening to.

These ideas that I'll write are my own observation and interpretation:

Democrats:

- Keep doing what you're doing. We think you need more time before you're done changing our society for the better.

Republicans:

- It's now all on the Democratic party - for the Presidency and Senate, if you guys mess up, you won't be re-elected and you'll have more of a track record for us to campaign against.

The Results of the Voting Process:

- With a nearly dead even 50% vote for both sides, the voting process is a better measurement on how well people think you're doing over polls.

The numbers tell the story. President Obama did win the popular vote, but not by a huge landslide. While his position is "not in trouble" it is a better indicator of how well the American people view how well he's doing as President.

Basically, the Democratic party will be in trouble if they can't deliver good policies for the American people and economy.

The other mandate is that the Republican party didn't deliver on winning enough votes. They are considering the future of the party and how to better deliver its message (or changing the message).

In essence, it's all about what the numbers are trying to tell people in politics what the people are looking for and expect.

[carlimac]

Ok but define mandate.

[Dravin]

Mandate* - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition 2 is the one Skippy740 is using. In other contexts, such as an unfunded mandate like you heard tossed around in discussion of the Health Care Act, you'll see definition 1.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Dravin

[bythelake]

Politicians often use the the term mandate to justify what they are doing or want to do.

In other words, if they win the election that means that people agree with their positions on the issues and what they want to do.

If it is an incumbent, they may use re-election as an indication that they are on the right track.

[annewandering]

Politicians often use the the term mandate to justify what they are doing or want to do.

In other words, if they win the election that means that people agree with their positions on the issues and what they want to do.

If it is an incumbent, they may use re-election as an indication that they are on the right track.

Wouldnt this make sense? If people felt they were on the wrong track wouldnt they vote for the other guy? Since they were elected/reelected doesnt it mean people do favor their position and what they are doing?

Its hard to understand why people would vote for something they dont agree with.

[bytor2112]

Wouldnt this make sense? If people felt they were on the wrong track wouldnt they vote for the other guy? Since they were elected/reelected doesnt it mean people do favor their position and what they are doing?

Its hard to understand why people would vote for something they dont agree with.

The problem with that line of thinking is that people vote for parties and candidates for a variety of reasons. In an election that should have been about the economy...it ended up being about many other things. Abortion, g/l marriage, the President appearing Presidential in the aftermath of Sandy, Cayman Island Tax shelters, the 1% vs. the 99%, etc. So to say that everyone that voted for Obama believes he is on the right track doesn't really reflect reality.

remember that nearly as many voted against Obama as voted for him and the Democrats control the Senate still and the Republicans control the House...still. So really, nothing has changed.

[carlimac]

Thanks Bytor! Got it, now. I just wasn't getting the context I was hearing it in.

[Guest]

In politics, a mandate is simply the will of the people.

So, a mandate exists when a person running for office as a representative submits to the people a particular action/policy and majority of the people vote to put him in office.

Lets put this in an example - say Anatess runs for Homeowner's Association President and in her platform, she proposes to the people to make it illegal for ice-cream trucks to blast music through their loudspeakers. If she gets elected, then she has a mandate to work on ending the ice-cream truck music. Now, let's say that as a President, she works on raising the Homeowner's Association Fees. She does not have a mandate to do that, therefore, the people who do not agree with the higher fees have a publicly valid reason to protest.

In a State or Federal office - this becomes a little bit more complicated because there are 3 parts to making a law. The Executive Branch, the Senate, and the House. So, if the political party platform says they are for raising taxes for those making over $250K, and the political party wins the Presidency/Governorship, Senate, and House, then it is clear that they have a mandate to raise taxes for those making over $250K. But, if one of those parts did not get majority, then the mandate for raising taxes is in question.

Also, in a Presidential election, there is the popular vote and the electoral vote. If the President wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, then his mandate is in question.

Make sense?

[Guest]

The problem with that line of thinking is that people vote for parties and candidates for a variety of reasons. In an election that should have been about the economy...it ended up being about many other things. Abortion, g/l marriage, the President appearing Presidential in the aftermath of Sandy, Cayman Island Tax shelters, the 1% vs. the 99%, etc. So to say that everyone that voted for Obama believes he is on the right track doesn't really reflect reality.

remember that nearly as many voted against Obama as voted for him and the Democrats control the Senate still and the Republicans control the House...still. So really, nothing has changed.

The mandate is interpreted as everything in the Political Party platform that is talked about in majority of the campaign speeches to the people regardless of the reasons people elect somebody in office. Any analysis of why some guy won over another is merely speculation.

And yes, you need all 3 parts - Execute, Senate, and House - plus the popular vote to have a clear mandate.

[annewandering]

The problem with that line of thinking is that people vote for parties and candidates for a variety of reasons. In an election that should have been about the economy...it ended up being about many other things. Abortion, g/l marriage, the President appearing Presidential in the aftermath of Sandy, Cayman Island Tax shelters, the 1% vs. the 99%, etc. So to say that everyone that voted for Obama believes he is on the right track doesn't really reflect reality.

remember that nearly as many voted against Obama as voted for him and the Democrats control the Senate still and the Republicans control the House...still. So really, nothing has changed.

Obama was voted in by a clear majority. A majority of the people did want him in office. There is no way you can say the American public wants him to do things differently. If they had, they would have voted Romney into office. Paint it how you want, that is sitll just the fact of the matter.

[skippy740]

Yes, it was a clear majority. But it was not an overwhelming majority. Barely above 50%.

What do the numbers tell you?

They tell me that more people want to see things done differently... and only a slight majority in a few key areas made the difference.

Yes, Obama won the popular vote... but not by much, and that's not good for an incumbent politician and their political party/agenda.

[annewandering]

Yes, it was a clear majority. But it was not an overwhelming majority. Barely above 50%.

What do the numbers tell you?

They tell me that more people want to see things done differently... and only a slight majority in a few key areas made the difference.

Yes, Obama won the popular vote... but not by much, and that's not good for an incumbent politician and their political party/agenda.

Sorry to be nitpicky but no more do not want things changed. Yes a lot do. Not more.

[skippy740]

How about "an increasing number" wanted a different direction, but not greater than the majority that was barely over 50%?

[Backroads]

I think skippy is saying that the country is pretty divided over what they want. Even if it's not "more", the Democratic party still has quite a few people against it, and that's difficult for the party.

[Vort]

Sorry to be nitpicky but no more do not want things changed. Yes a lot do. Not more.

Obama ran on a campaign of "hope and change" (how's that working out for you?), so those who voted for him voted largely in hopes of change. That doubtless remains true today. Those who voted against him clearly wanted change; half the population of the US wanted the guy out of the White House. So it's pretty clear most people wanted change.

[annewandering]

Obama ran on a campaign of "hope and change" (how's that working out for you?), so those who voted for him voted largely in hopes of change. That doubtless remains true today. Those who voted against him clearly wanted change; half the population of the US wanted the guy out of the White House. So it's pretty clear most people wanted change.

Hey it is working for me. I got my health coverage back. That was very important to me in that in some ways I would like to stay alive a bit longer. Its working for me because my kids all have jobs now except one and he did have a seasonal job and his VA medicals are not going to cop out on him. I have 8 kids so thats not bad. :)

I expect the economy to continue improving. I expect to not have any more kids sent off to wars anytime soon and so none of them are going to risk give their lives there, hopefully.

Yep. All in all things are doing ok.

[Backroads]

My problem is that I can now barely afford health insurance because the prices shot up...

[annewandering]

My problem is that I can now barely afford health insurance because the prices shot up...

That has been an ongoing problem and needs to be solved. Perhaps you can contract your representatives and demand they help get it solved.

[Dravin]

That has been an ongoing problem and needs to be solved. Perhaps you can contract your representatives and demand they help get it solved.

Excellent advice, we should all write our representatives and make our desire for the repealing of the HCA known. Thanks for the suggestion.

[annewandering]

Excellent advice, we should all write our representatives and make our desire for the repealing of the HCA known. Thanks for the suggestion.

While I am in favor of the HCA there are other options that are better. Sure lets get them to talking about all the problems we face and reach agreements to carry us forward. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

That has been an ongoing problem and needs to be solved. Perhaps you can contract your representatives and demand they help get it solved.

Annewandering, there's no polite way to say this and I apologize in advance. But you, and millions of other Americans, apparently need to hear it based on your policy arguments and the results of the recent election:

Backroads, although relatively young and healthy and probably getting minimal medical care for herself and her family at this stage of her life, is paying significantly higher health insurance premiums because that same health insurer is now being forced to shell out thousands of more dollars to cover someone like you, who are nearing retirement age and statistically far more likely to need much more expensive health care.

To cut Backroads' rates, you have three choices. Option one is for you to quit getting so many expensive procedures - enter the Independent Payment Advisory Board (or whatever it wound up being called) - a.k.a. Sarah Palin's infamous "death panels". Option two is to compel the doctors, radiologists, nurses, and other health care professionals take hefty pay cuts. Health insurance itself - contra the demagoguery promulgated by your politicians of choice - is not a particularly profitable business; coming in eighty-sixth in marginal profitability in one recent study. You won't cure the problem by cutting the fat out of them - or even eliminating them completely. At the end of the day, the lion's share of the fees you protest are applied to health care professionals who are really just workers. And I think we can all agree that workers who are not well paid, don't tend to produce good work product.

Option three, of course, is that you can always try to get a government bailout for the industry. That trick will only work a finite number of times. We're out of money.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[bytor2112]

Obama was voted in by a clear majority. A majority of the people did want him in office. There is no way you can say the American public wants him to do things differently. If they had, they would have voted Romney into office. Paint it how you want, that is sitll just the fact of the matter.

Your answer in no way addresses what i wrote>

[annewandering]

Just_a_Guy, yes those are problems. Not getting any argument that things are not the best they could be now. Working together could help that be more fair. Thats why I support the idea of letting our elected officials know we want them to find compromises and improve solutions.

[annewandering]

Your answer in no way addresses what i wrote>

You wrote that more people voted for change. That is exactly what I addressed.