The mandate debate

The debate is raging in Washington and across the country. Many reporters and conservative commentators are calling Bush's victory a mandate, while liberal groups and other observers are denying that it is anything of the sort (Media Matters usefully rounds up both sides of the debate in the process of arguing the liberal side). All this raises an important question from a political science perspective - what are mandates and how do they work?

The best work I've seen on this is a recent American Journal of Political Science article by Jim Stimson, David Peterson, and two other political scientists (236K PDF). They define a mandate as essentially a social construction - a collective interpretation of election results that carries an informational signal to nervous incumbents worried about re-election. In response, members of Congress deviate from their normal voting patterns in the direction of the mandate for some period of time, particularly those whose winning margins decreased in the previous election (they give this period a half-life of approximately 150 days). The authors provide some useful empirical tests of this hypothesis, examining the 1964, 1980 and 1994 elections as the three most recent "mandate" elections (based on coding of media content). 1980 appears to have had by far the biggest impact on individual Congressional voting behavior.

So how does 2004 compare to those three elections? In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won 61% of the vote (compared to Barry Goldwater's 38%) and 486 electoral votes. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51% of the vote (compared to Jimmy Carter's 41%) and 489 electoral votes. And in 1994, Republicans received 52% of votes for the House (compared with Democrats' 45%) and picked up 52 seats, as well as eight seats in the Senate. By contrast, in 2004, Bush won with 51% of the popular vote (compared to Kerry's 48%) and 286 electoral votes, while his party picked up four seats in both the House and the Senate. Clearly, this election does not compare to the consensus "mandate" elections in terms of popular vote margins, electoral vote totals, or Congressional seat pickups.

However, given the closely divided nature of Congress from 1996-2002 and the 50/50 results of the 2000 presidential election, Bush's win is being portrayed as decisive. As mandate supporters point out, he's the first president to win 50% of the popular vote since his father in 1988, though that statistic is largely an artifact of Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 and 1996. But in any case, perceptions are what matter here -- Bush will have a mandate if everyone thinks he has a mandate, especially those conservative Democrats who will determine whether he can pass his agenda in Congress.

Comments

[teresa]

First, I am a Caucasian, 58 year-old grandma who grew up in a primarily white, mildly prejudiced area. I am a “fence-sitter” (the politician's nightmare) who usually votes when I determine which candidate speaks best to the greatest percentage of my pet issues at the time.

I am the wife of a Viet Nam vet who spent the last year of my husband's service to his country married to him, and living on a Navy base. I admit--I am predisposed to like McCain.

I have a question about this “landslide” business. I Googled "landslide election" and it said "overwhelming" majority. Hmmm. Okay.

Then another article said Bush had a landslide at 52% while the higher level recently seems to have been 61%--but then the Electoral College came into it.....

Then I read that 52% would NOT constitute a landslide or mandate for Obama, even if he gets 320 Electoral College votes. I am really puzzled. Why?

I am delighted that our country has come to the point where we can ignore race to the extent that an African American will be elected President, as long as we all go to vote. But this "landslide" question...

I have a black (as she refers to herself) friend who was not allowed to swim in the "public" swimming pool in the afternoon as a child. "Colored" people could only swim in the morning, you know. This was ABOVE the Mason-Dixon Line.

Considering the disgusting "Hussein"- terrorist, preacher-terrorist slurs thrown his way (which DOES play to some percentage of the people looking for a politically correct way to voice their bigotry), how could ANY win by Obama not be considered a remarkable landslide or mandate? 15% of the population cannot elect a president--nor can they really compensate for those people who remain bigots in our country (The proof they exist is there if you only look at the white supremacists who plotted to kill Obama!). ONLY could a black man (African American) be elected if a majority of people--including a huge chunk of the "white" population--set aside any prejudice and vote for what is right, for a qualified candidate.

Given his starting from behind, then, why will Obama's election, if he "only" gets 52% of the popular vote, NOT be a landslide? Even if he does not get the over 300+ Electoral College votes, it must SURELY be considered a landslide or mandate.

Incidentally, I did not vote for Mr. Obama in the primary. After his nomination, I regarded the man and he has EARNED my vote.

I compliment his running one of the most gentlemanly run campaigns I have ever seen. And, as I am 58, I have seen a few.

My first remembered election was that of “that” Catholic, John Kennedy!

Kennedy was enthralling. We watched him on TV and he was energetic but calm. He was eloquent and smart. Sound familiar? So is Obama. (BTW, I later found out a few things I didn't like about Kennedy's personal life, but that didn't--to this day--detract from my regard for his leadership abilities.)

Yes, I have voted Democratic. And Republican. And ONE year I refused to vote at all. I know! I am a fence-sitting politician's nightmare!

So, if anyone has a decisive answer to this landslide question, given the specifics of THIS campaign, please give me some insight.