The real problem is that 50% of the voteing public even votes. So technically it would only be 25% of the available voteing public voted for Bush or Gore. Plus that's less that the general public because not everyone is registered to vote or old enough to. So maybe you have a combined 40% of the total population that voted for either.

Stats are allways problamatic anyway. Like Mark Twain said, " There are two kinds of Liars, poloticians and stataticians. The two generally work together too.

Close, it works out to 37% of all Americans participated in the 2000 election. And then about 47% of those folks voted for Bush.

This is why I never associate a population directly with it's political leadership.

Although, in the same way that you can take a sampling of a population on any survey and use that to represent the whole within a certain margin of error, elections can be the same. In fact most surveys have so many fewer counts than elections.
So it's relatively safe to say that the remaining 63% of Americans might have voted along similar lines as the first 37% and 47% plus or minus a few percent of them would have also voted for Bush.

In this case it would seem like Bush shouldn't have won, so it's not accurate to say that most of America supported him, perhaps "nearly half" would be better, but how about the 2004 elections?

But an election is not a survey. We cannot determine why those that choose not to vote choose not to vote. Maybe they didn't like any of the candidates... we don't know for sure, and surely there are many many reasons why.

Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote in the 2002 election in Iraq. Do you conclude that 100% of the people in Iraq supported Saddam Hussein?

Anyway, my main point is I do not judge a body of people strictly on their leadership. I talk to people all around the world, and rarely are they really satisfied with what their government is doing. Maybe that is the one generalization we can make about humanity on the whole.

here in uk i have never voted for the winning party. i voted for the green party.

other brits here who will know the outcome of our present coalition govt, i personallly think the two men cameron/conservative/ and clegg liberal--are like school boys out to play with their toys.

we have our hooligans who i would wish to avoid at all costs.


sometimes they give a really bad image of brits---so people dislike the brits but majority of people are law abiding but with our latest changes i believe there will be many protests against the massive cuts in our country.

definition
 

Excuse me, what "hooligans" you are talking about? Could you explain?

My respect for you just went up.

I vote green also here in NZ.

The chavs.

Just wanted to add that the United States president is not decided on popular vote, but rather Electoral College. Dwindling the "general opinion" of the people numbers down even further.

those who give a bad image for their country by getting drunk and out of control. especially when they travel abroad in groups and behave really badly.

anyone who gives a bad impression of the british people.

there is too much binge drinking where they get bladdered-- often ending up needing hospital treatment if they hurt themselves, when we travel abroad we should behave in a decent manner not make others detest the rest of decent behaving brits. i feel sorry for our police and hospitals that have to deal with drink or drug related problems.


i would believe that most brits are decent. football hooliganism is one example of bad behaviour.

sorry i have a broken arm and cannot do capital letters easily