Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million

Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000

States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29

Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2
Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1

Hope this helps!

I have thrown out re-count stats,square miles of winning and he has told me

Square miles don't vote. people do. property may rule us in other ways, but not this one.

More accurately, states vote -- people don't have a constitutional right to vote for president. the fact that gore won the popular vote just means that more people wanted him to be the president, but, since we have a system of affirmative action for smaller states, that doesn't matter.

Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2
Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 2.1

Does this show that murderers vote for gore or people who live in high murder areas vote for gore? Frankly i think the second one. And its a crappy statistic. It can quite easily say that people who are concerned about their counties murder rates vote democrat.

Make sure your frind you are arguing with understands that Al's own state did not want him to be President, and they should know best.

His claim is BS on its face; whoever is in the White House has the mandate to do whatever the hell he wants. The Constitution specifically makes it clear that only the electoral votes count towards the "mandate." If Gore had gotten literally 100% of the vote in enough states to give him 269 EVs, and Bush only got 50% +1 vote in each of the states needed to give him 270 EVs, the mandate would still be George W. Bush's.

You might also point out to Captain Clueless that even if Gore skirted past him in the popular vote, Bush's 49-50% of the popular vote is equal to Clinton's 1996 win, and far surpasses Clinton's 1992 plurality of 42% or so. So unless this jerk was whining about Clinton having no mandate throughout his two terms in office, said jerk should be laughed at directly into his face and then ignored.

Really, though, no matter what, the entire concept of a "mandate" is generally crap. While it's true that a president that got in with 85% of the vote would have a hell of a psychological weapon to use against his opponents in Congress, the reality is that any true leader will be able to lead regardless of what the polls say. This whole "mandate" business is usually only used as a cheap ploy by the losing side in order to try to shame or embarrass the winner into toning down his platform. As we have seen in GWB since well before 9/11, this tactic has failed miserably for the angry Democrats.

Summarized more succinctly: Being sworn in IS the mandate.

Does this show that murderers vote for gore or people who live in high murder areas vote for gore? Frankly i think the second one.

I think it easily shows that areas with higher liberal votes, meaning higher liberal policies have probably been instituted there, you have failed policy and higher crime. Where as in conservative areas, where you probably have more conservative policy, crime is lower. Conclusion: Liberal policies breed crime and criminals.

It is irrevlevant.

How many people do you think might have stayed home and not voted because of the premature network calls for Gore.

How many illegals and dead people voted?

How many Democrats voted more than once?

How many people living in Solid-Bush states did not bother to vote because Bush was "safe" in their state?

How many times has Algore received an approval rating from the American people higher than 90%?

How many people now admit to voting for Gore? (Answer: 42%)

How many Gore supporters are happy as all get out that Bush is in charge and not Gore?

The rules state that you need to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. If the Pop Vote counted, the campaigns would have been different BIG TIME. <p"Tell your idiot friend to Get a Clue, no one care's about such mental masturbation anymore. Get over it!!!

So unless this jerk was whining about Clinton having no mandate throughout his two terms in office, said jerk should be laughed at directly into his face and then ignored.

LOL!! That about sums it up.

I too always thought the "mandate" argument was silly, for the same reason that Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote. Im sure thats different, though....

Tell them that "mandate" is a term bestowed by the media. It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as something a President must have--it only talks about the number of electoral votes required. And the electoral system hasn't been changed via amendment, so your buddies don't have a leg to stand on.

(Sigh)...I supposed you tried to tell them that Bush got more of the popular vote last year than Clinton did in '92 and '96. Were they whining about HIS lack of mandate, since he never did break the 50 % margin in two elections? I didn't think so.

1) What office did Al Gore win by getting a plurality of the popular vote? Wouldn't he need an office to exercise his phantom mandate?

2)A mandate is considered to have been won when a majority of votes has been one. A majority is 50% + 1 of any given group. Al Gore did not get a majority of the votes for the sample.

since we have a system of affirmative action for smaller states, that doesn't matter.

Let me be the first to flame the crap out of this BS comment.

The United States Constitution is a masterpiece of tyranny prevention. The Founders foresaw the potential tyranny that could come from a government dominated by the interests of large cities and more populous states. That is why they created a Senate with equal representation to balance the House with proportional representation, and why they created an Electoral College. They knew that the only way the Presidency would have long-term legitimacy after the founding generation had passed, was to ensure that a majority of States elected the president.

In modern times, this system prevents one party from utilizing vote fraud in a few heavily populated states to swing a national election. The Democrats tried this in 2000 and damn near got away with it, but they succeeded only in winning the "popular vote" courtesy of thousands of manufactured votes in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York City, Detroit, St.Louis, and Palm Beach.

He is stating Gore won more of the popular vote leaving Bush with no mandate.

Tell him that if the total popular vote is what mattered, both men would have run their campaigns differently around the popular vote instead of the electoral votes - for example, Bush would have squeezed every last vote out of Texas instead of accepting that the electoral votes from his home state were his. So to go back and rant about the popular vote is irrelevant - it's like trying to say that the team with the most rebounds should have won the basketball game. And, come to think of it, the folks who knew Gore best, the folks back home in Tennessee, went for Bush. If that isn't telling, I don't know what is.

It is irrevlevant.

Sorry, this sounds like I'm talking about Jesse Jackson. I meant to say irrelevant.

Hmmmm.....The Sore Loserman lost BOTH Tennessee and Arkansas. Seems that the results of his home state and that of a neighboring state speaks volumes of those that knew him best.

Our founders knew what they were doing when the set up the voting system....they sat it up so that a few big states with large populations could not pick our President...hence the Elector system was put in place...each state having a certain amount of "Electors" that are supposed to vote the same way the citizens of their state voted...most of the states picked Bush but some of the large states picked Gore and he ended up with the "Popular vote"...but most of America picked Bush and so Bush was the rightful winner and it has been that way from the beginning and while many people thought the system was outdated...they were wrong and our country's founders know what they were doing!

Also remind your friend that if the election were decided by popular vote, we'd probably still be trying to decide who won the contest. Since the margin was so slim, there'd by recounts in EVERY state, instead of just Florida and a couple of others. There could have been nationwide protests. Riots would certainly have broken out. People would have been injured or killed. The Founding Fathers, by making it 50 state elections instead of a national one, contained the dispute to one state. They KNEW what they were doing, despite what some Kool-Aid drinking liberal will tell you.

Also, try this: www.newspeakdictionary.com
There's a great breakdown of Bush and Gore's arguments and a scorecard of who had the moral edge, legal edge, and strategic edge of in every argument. Bush handily wins.

And Bush would have campaigned not only in Texas but also in Oklahoma and Kansas where he was going to win without campaigning. He made one stop in OK the day before the OK primary and we gave him our electoral votes hands down. I met a lot of folks that didn't bother to go vote because they knew he was going to win Oklahoma!

I thought the Goron won Washington DC.