I think you could make that argument, but since the intervention of
the Supreme Court was totally unprecedented and not everyone
saw it as "legitimate" and it is not specifically addressed in the
Constitution, a very strong argument can also be made the other
way. The Court could also have extended time or chosen a
different method of counting or let the thing play out. It apparently
felt that a decision was needed, but to say it is something
Americans are responsible as if it were a standard practice is
On 7 Oct 2003, at 15:28, Tom Gray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> --- Nancy Gish - Women's Studies <[log in to unmask]>
> > I do not think the parliamentary system is analogous
> > since it builds
> > in plurality decisions. Margaret Thatcher never had
> > a majority.
> > But the US system assumes a majority of the
> > Electoral College
> > and assumes that will also be true of the popular
> > vote--though the
> > possibility of it not doing so is clear.
> Indeed it is very common for governments to be elected
> with only a minority (but more than any other party)
> of the vote. Governments are elected routinely with
> only a minority of the popular vote to receive
> overwhelming majorities in the legislature. They can
> pass legislation with only cursory reference to the
> opposition in the legislature.
> This is the way the British system works in Canada.
> Governments elected this way are considered
> legitimate. I would consider that since Bush was
> elected by a legitimate operation of the American
> Constitution than Americans are responsible for his
> government as well.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search