"Human Events Online - The National Conservative Weekly" says...
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4829One of the great strengths of the Electoral College is that
it tends to magnify presidential victories. For example, although Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996, he won comfortably in the Electoral College, which gave him a mandate to govern even though he lacked majority support among voters. {Clinton had the most votes, but it was under 50% - technically a "plurality" - not a "majority".}
And conservative think-tank The American Heritage Foundation says...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm15.cfmStability and Certainty in Elections. Historically, most elections have not been close in the Electoral College, even when the popular vote is close. The Electoral College system, when combined with the winner-take-all rule, tends to magnify the margin of victory, giving the victor a certain and demonstrable election outcome. The magnification of the electoral vote can work to solidify the country behind the new President by bestowing an aura of legitimacy.The election of 1960 was one such close election. John Kennedy won only 49.7 percent of the popular vote, compared to Nixon's 49.5 percent. However, Kennedy won 56.4 percent of the electoral vote, compared to Nixon's 40.8 percent. Eight years later, this magnification effect worked in favor of Nixon. Although he won the popular vote by less than one percent, he won 55.9 percent of the electoral vote to Hubert Humphrey's 35.5 percent. This magnification effect increases dramatically as popular vote totals spread apart. For instance, in 1952, the winning candidate won 55.1 percent of the popular vote, but a much larger 83.2 percent of the Electoral College vote. In 1956, the difference was 57.4 percent (popular vote) to 86.1 percent (electoral vote). In 1964, it was 61.1 percent (popular vote) to 90.3 percent (electoral vote).
Presidential elections since 1804 have generally seen wide margins of victory in the Electoral College. These margins have gotten wider, on average, through the years as the winner-take-all rule has been adopted by more states and the two-party system has solidified.
Since 1804, only two elections -- those in 1876 and 2000 {UPDATE: AND NOW 2004!} -- were won by fewer than 20 electoral votes. = = =
There has NEVER been a President in history with as LITTLE of a mandate as Bush.
You know the saying - all cowboy boots, no mandate.