10-14-2020, 09:23 PM
(10-14-2020, 09:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Both of Clinton terms would be ruled by minority then because he never got a majority of the vote. The first time he missed by a lot. Not sure how the Senate was at the time.
(10-14-2020, 09:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Excellent point. I'm sure there will be a spin about three candidates dividing the vote, but that won't factually take away anything from your point at all.
![[Image: 48c.jpg]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/909/991/48c.jpg)
As a bureaucrat, I appreciate it. However, in our current election system a plurality is as good as a majority. So while Clinton may not have had the majority, he did have the plurality, which is good enough. It shouldn't be, but it is.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
