US Election tangent

[Hope]

I've started a new thread because I'm thinking both wider than only the US Election, but also thinking 'off-piste'.

We know that the current presidential election has been called the election between two of the least liked candidates - at least in living memory.  My question is - what winning level of support would actually leave the elected candidate a lame-duck, perhaps even a dead-duck, from day 1 of their Presidency?

Now, I understand that the average voter turnout for Presidential elections is about 60% (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections).

How many of those people - who actively chose to turn up at the voting booth to cast a vote in some way or other - would it take to make a mockery of any result?  I am aware that few, if any, countries count abstentions (I believe they are in Australia, where voting is compulsory but the ballot paper has a 'none of the above' option), but we usually get turnout figures long before the voting results are announced.  If the votes recorded for both candidates combined were to come to less than, say, 35% of that turnout figure, and one won by a 51-49% margin of that 'less than 35%' figure, what impact would it have on that person's Presidency?

Put that into the British context, how would it impact on our Parliamentary democracy?

[Harrowby Hall]

I've started a new thread because I'm thinking both wider than only the US Election, but also thinking 'off-piste'.

We know that the current presidential election has been called the election between two of the least liked candidates - at least in living memory.  My question is - what winning level of support would actually leave the elected candidate a lame-duck, perhaps even a dead-duck, from day 1 of their Presidency?

Now, I understand that the average voter turnout for Presidential elections is about 60% (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections).

How many of those people - who actively chose to turn up at the voting booth to cast a vote in some way or other - would it take to make a mockery of any result?  I am aware that few, if any, countries count abstentions (I believe they are in Australia, where voting is compulsory but the ballot paper has a 'none of the above' option), but we usually get turnout figures long before the voting results are announced.  If the votes recorded for both candidates combined were to come to less than, say, 35% of that turnout figure, and one won by a 51-49% margin of that 'less than 35%' figure, what impact would it have on that person's Presidency?

Put that into the British context, how would it impact on our Parliamentary democracy?

In US Constitutional terms, I think that a lame duck president is one for whom Congress (that is both houses, Senate and Representatives) see no reason to deal with. We often forget that in the USA, the President, although Head of State, only occupies the role of the Executive (the civil service, if you like). If he presents proposal after proposal of intended legislation and everything is rejected by Congress then he would be a lame duck.

[Hope]

In US Constitutional terms, I think that a lame duck president is one for whom Congress (that is both houses, Senate and Representatives) see no reason to deal with. We often forget that in the USA, the President, although Head of State, only occupies the role of the Executive (the civil service, if you like). If he presents proposal after proposal of intended legislation and everything is rejected by Congress then he would be a lame duck.

I'm aware of that, HH, but if his/her electoral manadate was so small as to be negligible, wouldn't that impact on their ability to act as President?

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm aware of that, HH, but if his/her electoral manadate was so small as to be negligible, wouldn't that impact on their ability to act as President?

Probably not if both houses were on his/her side. Probably if it was the reverse.

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm aware of that, HH, but if his/her electoral manadate was so small as to be negligible, wouldn't that impact on their ability to act as President?

You are thinking about this in UK terms and are thus confused.

Your word:Mandate. Your context is not clear but I suspect you mean popular vote. You ought to be aware by now that the president is not elected by the popular vote but by the Electoral College.

Due to the inequities in the make up of the College it is quite possible for the candidate with the lower proportion of the national vote to be elected. This was the case when George W Bush became president rather than Al Gore. (I say became president rather than was elected because Bush seized the presidency in a coup - but this coup was conducted by lawyers not soldiers.)

Technically, Obama is a lame duck president.

[Hope]

You are thinking about this in UK terms and are thus confused.

Your word:Mandate. Your context is not clear but I suspect you mean popular vote. You ought to be aware by now that the president is not elected by the popular vote but by the Electoral College.

I am aware of the distinction, but even then, the Electoral College provides a 'mandate' - perhaps not in the normal sense of the word, and perhaps 'mandate' is the incorrect word to use.

(I say became president rather than was elected because Bush seized the presidency in a coup - but this coup was conducted by lawyers not soldiers.)

I wonder whether, rather than using the term 'coup' it would be more realistic to refer to the fact that the voting legislation they had, hadn't fully caught up with the technical advances in voting that were available and therefore the legislation hadn't been amended appropriately.  I assume it has now - both State and Federal.

[Harrowby Hall]

I wonder whether, rather than using the term 'coup' it would be more realistic to refer to the fact that the voting legislation they had, hadn't fully caught up with the technical advances in voting that were available and therefore the legislation hadn't been amended appropriately.  I assume it has now - both State and Federal.

Could be, but if I recall correctly, the problem lay in the "hanging chads". The technical aspects of the electoral process supposedly providing an accurate record of voters were not capable of reliably recording those votes. A manual check of the voting cards was then started but Bush (well, his legal team) argued something like the process was too slow and that a deadline for counting votes had to be set, and on that basis he won the state of Florida and the White House. Did it not later emerge, when all the cards had been examined that Gore should have been awarded the state?

It wasn't a case of appropriate legislation but of reliable machinery.

[jeremyp]

I'm aware of that, HH, but if his/her electoral manadate was so small as to be negligible, wouldn't that impact on their ability to act as President?

George W Bush was elected without a majority of the popular vote. That is to say, more people voted for Al Gore than him. The reason for this is that people in the USA don't vote directly for the president, they vote for which way their state is going to vote and each state has a number of votes weighted by their size.

The whole thing is complicated by the fact that the President is not the leader of the biggest party in Congress but is voted for separately to the Senate and House of Representatives. At the moment the President is Democrat but the Senate and House are both Republican which basically means Obama can't do anything.