Each new administration claims a mandate to execute its policies. After all, they won, didn’t they?
But we have had (?#) recent (how many years/elections) elections in which the popular vote went one way and the electoral vote went another. The electoral vote certainly carries the day in our republic, but does it really carry any significant mandate when more people vote against the winning candidate than voted for him or her?
This year, Trump claims a significant mandate to execute his proposed policies, yet more people voted against him than voted for him.
I found a website that claims to show the official vote count from the 2024 presidential election. When you add it all up, it shows that the majority voted not for Trump but for someone else:
49.80% for Trump
50.20% for others
LINK: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024presgeresults.pdf
The total popular votes received by Kamala D. Harris, Donald J. Trump, and Others are as follows:
- Kamala D. Harris: 48.32%
- Donald J. Trump: 49.80%
- Others: 1.88% (calculated as 100% – 48.32% – 49.80%)
I have not researched this yet, but news commentators have pointed out a pattern over a number of election cycles where one major party wins with a small margin of popular support. They start out assuming a significant mandate and go “gung-ho” forward with major policy changes, only to experience considerable backlash in the midterm elections and then lose the next presidential election.
It may be that the more extreme the policy changes, then the more extreme the backlash. We will surely see over the coming years because President Trump is starting with extreme policy changes at an extreme pace.
How do you feel? Are you “Gung Ho” for Trump’s aggressive policy changes? Would you like different ones? Or a different pace? What do you think about those already underway?
Let us know in the comments section below.
