Letter: Both sides need to compromise

I have been reading in your paper and on the net all this talk about a “mandate” for the Democratic party. I find that notion an absurdity, as well as a great example of hype. Considering that the political left has long been a critic of the Electoral College, let’s look at the popular vote, which the left has always considered as the true yardstick.

Obama won the election by less than 4 percent of the vote. That is hardly a mandate.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won over Barry Goldwater by 22.6 percentage points. That is a mandate.

In 1972 Richard Nixon won over George McGovern by 23.1 percentage points. That is a mandate.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan won over Walter Mondale by 18.2 percentage points. That is a mandate.

You could even stretch the concept with the 1996 Bill Clinton over Bob Dole by 8.5 percent, but thats pushing it.

But less than 4 percentage points and it’s a mandate? How absurd!

Let’s talk football to make it easier to understand: The results of the Obama-Romney game were 21-20 with Obama winning. That is what 4 percent looks like. That is not a mandate, that is squeaking out a win, Barely.

Care to look at it differently? Say there are 41 people on a bus and they want to go to New Orleans and Pensacola, but they don’t have the money to do both, so they vote. The vote is 20 want New Orleans, 20 want Pensacola. One person tips the scale.

That is not a mandate, and those who believe it is, including this newspaper, need to get over themselves and face reality. We are a divided nation and the difference between left and right is marginal at best.

The left demand that Republicans compromise in ways that will hurt them with their constituency, but refuse to do anything that will hurt themselves with their own constituency. In a 21-20 victory, I think the left needs to realize that in a game this close, both sides should be proud of their accomplishments and both sides need to sacrifice.

Orhan Kozdereli

returning Student

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 16/11/2012

@lovemykids: "Did not Bush claim a mandate over Gore?" -[**]- Rather, there was the claim that Bush did not have a mandate because he lost the popular vote. However, the word mandate did appear in the writings of the time: Mandate for Electoral reform: http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__annual_survey_of_american_law/documents/documents/ecm_pro_065059.pdf Then there was also a reference in the SCOTUS decision which issued it's own mandate as per a recount: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html . This second reference is undoubtedly the mandate which Bush claimed over Gore you were thinking of. Yes! That would be it.

2) Comment by tradewinns - 16/11/2012

i also agree the rich (to be determined) could and should pay the at least the same rate as the rest of us, whether the "rich" start at $250K or $1 million, they are fiscally able to pay addittional funds than the "average" taxpayer. the average joe/jane is tapped out with no where to go.

3) Comment by tradewinns - 16/11/2012

"conservative bubble". a new tag, thanks, i was getting tired of the old ones. what about the "liberal stupidity" that thinks increased spending and increased debt will fix anything wrong with the nation? why not cut back on spending? there are so many items that could be cut back on and which would do NO damage to the "poor or working poor". for example, the nation now spends $1 BILLION a year on cell phones for the disadvantaged. is something so important that they couldn't get by on the "land line" program (which was started to provide a means to contact 9-1-1) which cost less than $300K a year NATIONWIDE? how about cracking down on IEC cheats? IEC is now (or was prior to the recession) larger than ALL WELFARE PROGRAMS COMBINED!! and even the IRS admits to a cheating rate of 25%. i worked for the IRS for awhile and i believe the cheaters represent something on the order of 50%. so that program alone can cut $ BILLIONS from the budget. our debt problem is not the social security program, it is still owed a tremendous amount from the U.S. government (they borrowed all of the funds) and medicare is believe it or not still solvent, but being the "misspoken" politicians that they are, they are "buying in" medicAID users into the medicare programs. so it too will go short in funds to support the "poor" not those that paid for it.

4) Comment by unevahno - 16/11/2012

Orhan, you and your fellow right wingers sound either hypocritical, uninformed or as if you're in an alternate universe when you whine about "compromise" and what "both sides" need to do to compromise. Those who aren't in denial know that most of the GOP signed a pledge to Grover Norquist (NOT the American people) to do his bidding or face a hard time being reelected. Also, Mitch McConnell stated that the #1 job of the GOP, before, security, before the budget, before the welfare of the nation, was to make Obama a one-term president. The dimmest light knows that in order to do that, the GOP would have to try and wreck the nation and cause as many people as possible to undergo pain and hardship. And yet, the "conservative bubble" keeps their people fearful and uninformed.

5) Comment by Sidwit - 16/11/2012

Awesome letter! I have read where less than half a million votes in some key states would have changed the outome of the Electoral College. I agree, this close an election does not make it a mandate and no, Bush did not claim a mandate after his win over Gore. The liberal left leaning politicians have been bemoaning the Electoral College for years, yet they are trying to use the EC tally as their reason for claiming a mandate. The only mandate we have in this country is to clean out the House and the Senate of professional politicians and elect some real public servants.

6) Comment by DMJ - 16/11/2012

Facts come from reality. It's that giant space outside the conservative information bubble.

7) Comment by tradewinns - 16/11/2012

where do ya'll get your facts? both sides are currently compromising their positions. the democrats want more to spend, the republicans want to cut spending. they have both compromised back to doing neither. a stalemate is a compromise, neither get what they want. if either side gives a little more it will not be compromise, but collapse! i'd hate to run for re-election on the platform of "i collapsed".

8) Comment by DMJ - 16/11/2012

This letter is pointless. People who voted for the guy who won claim mandate (because, if not, then what's the point of an election) yet the people who's candidate lost say there's no mandate. Blah, blah, blah. And anyone who says the Democrats aren't willing to compromise hasn't been paying attention or has only been paying attention to certain news outlets that tell them what they want to hear. Remember cap-and-trade? This was the old Republican plan for climate change; the liberal plan was a direct carbon tax. Remember the individual mandate part of the health care legislation? Yeah, also a Republican idea. The liberal plans were single-payer and the public option....which the Democrats scutted in the spirit of compromise. The debt deal that the House Republican-yahoos killed had $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. Democrats aren't willing to compromise?!?! Oh, what life inside the bubble must be like. Sunny, partly cloudy, with a 0% chance of facts.

9) Comment by Maelstrom - 16/11/2012

What are you talking about? First, most of the people I've heard complaining about the Electoral college have been on both sides of the aisle (a short-sighted view, imo). Second, the proposal from the Dems has always included at least twice the amount in social programs than what is raised in tax increases. How is only one side that will compromise their beliefs, then? We have a long-term debt problem, not a short-term one. This means long-term solutions, not short-term solutions.

10) Comment by lovemykids - 16/11/2012

Did not Bush claim a mandate over Gore?

11) Comment by postscript56 - 16/11/2012

Thank you Gary. I agree. Republican voters were living in denial before the election and they are still living in denial after the election. Raising taxes on the wealthy was a central part of the debate and guess what? Obama won that debate on election night. End of story. Compromise? Obama and the Dems have been trying to compromise with Republicans for 4 years and for 4 years Republicans have failed to budge an inch. The loser should be the first to give an inch. And why is a college student so keen on protecting the uber wealthy from a tax increase? Orhan, you don't buy all that nonsense about job creation being a function of tax rates on the wealthy do you? You should use this semester to broaden your experiences.

12) Comment by gary - 16/11/2012

Orhan, you failed to mention the Constitutional Cgnvention of 1787 - that college thingy - I believe the POTUS cleaned Willard's plow on that vote tally - actually you could call the results - a MANDATE. Keep returning and studying.