Does the American electorate always get it right?

In my column in yesterday's paper I advanced the idea that since universal suffrage the UK voters had never got the election result wrong:

The proposition is that in every contest in these last 80 years the party that was more fit to govern has been victorious. Sometimes both of the main offerings were weak and unappealing, often the winner wasn't much good, but always the winner was better able to conduct the business of government than was the loser.

Is the same true in the United States?

It may not be.

I wonder, on reflection, whether it was really right to elect Jimmy Carter instead of Gerald Ford in 1976, for instance.

And I think there must be a question mark over electing FDR for a fourth term.

I don't think we are going to get very far arguing over 2000, since almost everyone who thinks Gore should have been elected also believes that he was elected. In the circumstances it wouldn't be fair to start arguing that the voters got it wrong.

So - do American voters always get it right in Presidential contests? What do you think?

Comments

[Robert Lamb]

Well, the U.S. voters elected Al Gore President in 2000. The got it right! But, The Supremes (5-4) awarded the Presidency to George the W. They got it wrong!

RL

[John H]

I was thinking about this yesterday, and concluded that - provided you set aside 2000 - the rule seems to hold at least back to 1960, more or less.

OK, Carter wasn't great - hence Reagan/Carter fits the rule - but then neither was Gerry Ford.

As for Nixon, 1972 only fits the rule because George McGovern seems to have been wildly unsuited for the presidency.

But arguably Hubert Humphrey would have been a better choice in 1968, and would probably have won had it not been for a combination of events (the George Wallace third-party candidacy, the chaos of the Democratic primary process and so on).

So you could say that 1968 was an aberration that then led to another aberrant result in 1972.

Anyway, will now hand this over to anyone who understands US politics better than me (not difficult...).

[Nick Anstead]

In some senses, it matters rather less whether the American electorate get it "right" than their UK counterparts. The seperation of powers in the US makes the result of any individual election far less significant. That changes the question slightly. One might argue that 2004 was a bad decision - not necessarily about Bush, but also about giving the GOP a majority in the House and Senate.

This was an unusual election though. What is really interesting though is how collectively the American electorate utilise these institutions to articulate their preferences. Look for example at the tendency of American voters to engage in split ticket voting - supporting one party for the Presidency and another for the legislature.

What will be really interesting in coming years is whether the British electorate adopt similar patterns of behaviour, especially with devolution in Scotland, Wales and London.

[Roxanna Marinak]

I think that Americans have huge egos and that is reflected in the Presidents that get into office!
Bush one of the most unsophisticated Presidents to ever take the white house, with cowboy mentality along with his administration he appointed.

Americans perhaps would benefit from kicking their foot in their commercial brain washing television and start actually reading.

[Gary]

The word "right" is a subjective one. What is right? Economy grow 5% or 20% when in position? Politically fight against evil countries? Jokes made? Thumb up sensation from people in the US or globally? Contract value of autobiography?

What is right for certain people, is not right for other people.

I don't think there is value of arguing about the "right" thing.

[elixelx]

"Everything is known, and yet Free Will is given" Rabbi Akiva...

What was that we used to say? Ah, Yes! "Vox Populi, Vox Dei".

Yes, the American Populi speaks with G-d's voice, and hence always get it right. Their Free Will is always confirmation of a Heavenly Decree!

[John T. Anderson, Olean, NY]

The United States has had three wartime elections in which incumbent presidents sought, and won, re-election: 1864 (Lincoln), 1944 (F. D. Roosevelt), and 2004 (G. W. Bush). A decisive segment of the American electorate will not "change horses in the middle of a stream," as the saying goes; that is, they will not turn out a sitting president during wartime. Whether their decision was "right" or not is something for the historians to argue about.

[Robert]

Are you kidding? You have now extended the Bush hating to its furthest position yet.

Also, Gore lost the the election. Saying anything else just leaves you out there as a loon...

[Pauline Renton]

Imagine Gore had come to power. Saddam would still be in power, encouraged by a lack of US resolve, as would the Taliban. Also America would have entered recession much earlier due to the cost of his crackpot environmental ideas, pulling down the EU with it.

[Taos]

No. However, it is simplistic to beleive that a nation's direction is solely determined by its president. Countries are prosperous based on the collective attitudes and habits of its people.

[Tom Halpin]

George W Bush
Is there really any need to say more?

[Steve]

In 1968 Hubert Humphrey lost a narrow race to Richard Nixon. With Humphrey in the White House, Americans would have been spared the Watergate scandal. In addition, there would not have been a US involvement in the overthrow of Allende in Chile. Nixon moved the Republican party to the right on race relations, an action which has had lasting implications for the country.

Had Al Gore been President, the US would not have invaded Iraq, there would be no Patriot Act, no Justice Department scandals, and America would have had a government willing to take steps to oppose global warming. The American foreign policy would have been collaborative rather than unilateral, and there would have been a strict adherence to the Geneva Convention.

How can the US with a straight face condemn the Russian invasion of Georgia in the wake of our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

[Jim]

I think American voters tend to get it right, but who's to say which President is right and which is wrong when only one gets to be elected? Would Dukakis have done a better job than George HW Bush? Would Kerry be any better that W? Clinton seems to have been the best choice both times he was elected, but then we got mired in the W years, and look where that's put us? I talked to a friend of mine recently who voted for W twice. The first time he voted for W because he thought Gore was a wimp (was he right?) and second because he thought Bush deserved to fix the mess he created in his first term. Now he regrets both votes. So, in closing, I would not say America gets it right or wrong. I would say that hindsight is 20/20 and we can't change the past.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

But Bush wasn't even elected.

The electorate had little to say.

[alan]

Pauline - good idea, imagining what the world would be like if Bush the Waterboarder had not been elected. I suggest the following:
1) Iraq would be a brutal but functioning dictatorship with a normal life for all except opponents of Saddam (rather like many other dictatorships in the world.)
2)Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would not be dead, maimed, traumatized, bereaved or displaced to other countries.
3) Thousand of GIs, Brits and other "allied" soldiers would not be dead or maimed, their families not bereaved or traumatized.
4) There would still be no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, just as there were none there before the invasion.
5) Anti-Amereicanism would not have risen to the present level, making it a bit dicy for any American travelling abroad.
6) American and British troops could have concentrated on the terror camps in Afghanistan instead of being diverted to Iraq by a US president hellbent on war.
7) The Middle East would be in a more stable state than it is now.
8) The US would be in a better military position than it is now, with its forces overstretched in an unwinnable war in two sovereign countries, both of which are members of the UN.
9) There would (probably) be no torture in Guantanamo, this shame on America outside the rule of law, robbing the US of any moral highground that it might (possibly) otherwise have had.
10) I might still be pro-American as I had been all my life pre-Bush.

[Aaron Kinney]

Americans never ever get it right in any election. That is because the proper thing to do would be to NOT elect any president or grant anyone a monopoly of power in the first place.

[loreto santiago]

Steve, our or any country's invasion of Iraq or another country does not and cannot justify or rationalize Russia's or another country's invasion of Georgia or another country. Invasion per se from any quarter is unquestionably condemnable. Ergo, not only angels but also devils MAY condemn an evil deed ANYTIME. You forgot the sadder part - if we did not condemn, we would have exposed ourselves as silent abettors of the invasion. Remember Thomas More's awe-inspiring remark during his trial for treason: "Silence means consent."

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Get it right?

The electorate didn't get the chance to decide.

Bush was appointed by the court.

[Josh]

I don't think the basic premise is quite sustainable. I was thinking the same thing about the UK theory yesterday.

The population as a whole can be trusted not to get it blatantly wrong; that's all.

[Tom Foster]

In American politics it's both harder for electorates to judge the suitability of a candidate and for historians to compare an actual term with a hypothetical one. Britain can usually observe a potential Prime Minister serve as leader of the oppostion with something resembling his cabinet in place before chosing to elect him. Americans don't have that luxury.

[CaptBlackEagle]

Of course we get it right. That is what I love about being an American. We vote for who we want, no matter how stupid that person may be.

Then after they get elected we can make money making fun of them, and no one throws you in jail for it.

We now allow (was not always the case) the stupid, illiterate, and deranged to vote. However, putting the liberals aside. Most of us are just everyday working joe's who watch silly TV shows and occasionally go fishing. I go fishing way to much.

From Montana Big Sky Country...Later on.

[chriso]

they don't get it right - they get what they deserve....

[Taff Gidi]

No they do not. The truth is the american electorate is holding back on Obama because he is black. That is the only sensible explanation why a candidate who is leading by double digits on every other issue except foreign policy where he is behind by a couple of points is still only 5points ahead in the polls. Considering the mess of he Bush administration, Mcain's age and poor grasp of the economy and his leaning towards the richer section of society, this election should be a slam dunk. Obama on the other hand is young, charismatic and has better policies, plus he is a democrat: the best thing that could ever happen to anyone in america right now. No one will mention it, even the Obama camp, but race clearly is still an issue in America and I wouldn't be surprised if Obama lost this election. There are clearly other issues in play in American politics rather than who can best serve america. Just like Al Gore lost to George Bush, Obama could lose to Mcain and we will all wonder for the next generation how it happened!!

[Ed P]

After 9/11 I heard over and over again people's comments to the effect, "Thank God, Al Gore wasn't elected." I never heard anywhere a single comment that it was a shame that Al Gore wasn't the President so he could have a collaborative foreign policy rather than take appropriate action against the Islamic terrorists.

Also, no one actually knows who won the popular vote in 2000. Since it doesn't matter to the electoral vote count, many states do not count absentee ballots if the gap between the candidates is greater than the number of absentee ballots. Therefore, several million absentee ballots, which normally skew heavily Republican, were never counted.

[Bob Williams]

We never get it right, so we welcome personal letters from John L'Carre and other Guardian readers to instruct us how to vote.

[Kara`]

Sure- we sometimes get it wrong. We elected Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton

[Hank Kocol]

The elections of 1951 and 2001, among many others, prove that the American public refuses to vote for a candidate who is obviously more intelligent than they. Eisenhower was elected over Adlai Stevenson and W over Al Gore.

[Jay]

Well America actually has gotten it right every election since 1992, except 2004. 2004 was the first time since 1988 a Republican got more votes than a Democrat. More people wanted Gore than Bush. 2004 was simply because John Kerry ran a joke campaign history shall forever laugh at.

[Jim Polk]

The question should be Do US voters ever get it right? Middle-class America votes with its heart, not with its brains, and would rather hear a pleasant lie from its leaders than an unpleasant truth. Universal suffrage was the worst tragedy ever to befall the United States, and one day it will be the undoing of what's left of our dear Republic.

[AJM]

If Gore had been correctly elected , 9/11 would still have happened ,yet perhaps to a lesser degree. Therefore , military action in Afganistan , and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden would still have probably occured , along with some lesser form of the Patriot Act , and Guantanomo Bay. However , U.S- European relations could be better at this point , and the U.S could have ratified the Kyoto Treaty , and reduced carbon emissions.However , if Gore was elected in 2000 ,the fall-out from the "war on terror" he could have been defeated in 2004, by an ultra right-wing Republican , or more preferbly the moderate , and pragmatic John McCain. It is difficult to analysis a potential Gore presidency , as we are still to close the event. However , I sincerelly trust Al Gore as a human being , more than George Walker Bush.

[john robinson]

Liberals, pay attention, this isn't even disputed fact: the media runs a website with all the tabulated votes from 2000. The only way Gore would've won is if he asked for a statewide hand recount with completely open standards. The precincts where he was looking didn't have the votes (unless he could "find" them). He also refused to let the Sec of State certify the election - which was the only way to get a statewide recount.

You could make a case that Bush won, but it would be more proper to say that Gore lost. Gore screwed himself. Get over it.

[Andrew Milner]

Considering the "bad or worse" choice offered, easy to understand why US voters abstain.

[neil watson]

The problem with the idea that Al Gore 'won' the 2000 election is that it means he 'won' on the strength of the vote from people too dumb to push a hole into a piece of paper. Is that really the electorate that the Left/Democrats court?

[JR]

I think the Canadian newspapers said it best in 2004, "How could 100 million people be so stupid".

[Gary Geoffrion]

Let's see now . . .

Kennedy right
Johnson right
Nixon wrong twice
Carter right
Reagan wrong twice
Bush I right
Clinton right twice
Bush II wrong twice

Looks pretty even to me, at least over the past five decades.

[Ralph Woods]

I am glad that Al Gore lost the 2000 election. It gave him the chance to save the entire world.

[Harris G]

Obviously not.

Just look at the last two elections.

[Joel]

Does any nation who elects their leaders "get it right"? Our democratic representative form of government is not perfect, nor are our leaders, but the United States endures, leads and inspires.

By the way, many Americans do read, travel and even follow events outside of the U.S. I'm always astounded by the silly stereotypes Europeans believe about Americans. I've lived in Europe and know that you have your share of illiterates, racist, homophobes who have never been out of their countries.

[Kay]

Ah yes, the stupid Americans the bent pinkie Europeans love to diss, however, these same Neanderthal Yanks with their high productivity kick the snot out of Euro folks year in year out. Remember all the Euro protests against Ronald Reagan? Now America's Little Cupcake, Obama, intones the memory of RR. Too rich for words.

[Lee Ruth Sachs]

George W. Bush is a good and decent man. He has tried to do right by his country and this world. He wanted to rid Iraq of a dictator whom he thought had WMD. Had Al Qaeda not started killing everyone in site, Iraq would have been aided to build one of the outstanding countries on this earth.
Perhaps someday hate will be put aside and reason and understanding can take place.
Bush derangement syndrome has made most of you speak and act very crazy.
And, Bush did win the 2000 election, just ask the New York Times. They went to Florida along with many other organizations and recounted all the votes. Bush won by 500 votes.
Because of the political leanings of most of these organizations, the result was not widely distributed.

[disgusted]

How can you look at what is living in the White House and actually ask such a dumb question???

It is random luck when things go right. Actually, with help from bits like the Democratic National Committee, the end result provides a great boost to organized religion, and private prayer.

[Debbie]

I look at it more as a fork in the road. We have a choice which path to follow and we must choose one sometimes it's a good one and other times as the last 8 years we at least learn what we don't want for the future. Let's hope the next choice takes down a better path which ever candidate wins.

[Eric]

Not discussing 2000, in 2004 the Americans got it tremendously wrong. I also think that Richard Nixon was a massive mistake by the American people, and he did a fantastic job of fooling everyone. I hope people make the right choice this time and elect Obama.

[Samuel]

Let's take a step back for a moment, please. If all things were equal I would say that information given at the right ( or wrong) times seems to be a better way to judge this. If we had the information we needed to judge properly, by the media, I would say that americans get it right most of the time, save for 2004 and 1972. You must take into account who the media likes and who it doesn't like. From there you can start the equation. the MSM seems to choose who they will dig into and who they feel "it doesn't serve us well" to get into their past. For all the talk of the "liberal media" they have a strange way of showing those signs.
The media helped get us into the Iraq war because it chose not to report about the truth as opposed to the Administrations propaganda.The media helped us reelect W because it chose not to report about the illegal wiretapping at the bequest of the administration.That might have changed the results of the 2004 election.
I am not one who usually believes that the amercian electorate is too engaged enough to make the best choices. But, having said that, They tend to make their chioces on who they would rather have a beer with than who might just be able to best solve their problems. Whose fault is that? It might just be the lazy electorate or it might be the way the media seems to report the race for the White House.
The answer is lets' have better reporting, fair reporting, and let us, the electorate, do a better job of diiging for ourselves.

[Ben Sullivan]

You brits are a crackup. How can you even pose this question after two terms of this Texas tyrant? George Jr. will go down as the worst of the worst, assuming our liberties are left intact enough to even write about it, and that he surrenders his office before his next major invasion. Good thing your North Sea Oil is running dry, or, under his lead, we'd be finding reasons to invade the UK. As far as the voters getting it right, the US populous is still asleep, seems like it has been since the 60's. We might just wake up though...

[ABRAHAM]

2001 attack will not be in the acheivements of Terrorists about America if Bush was not decleared the winner in 2000 by the Supreme. This time, the Americans are determined to get it RIGHT.

[Mike Jarriel]

Gore lost a close election. The US Supreme court vacated the Democrat majority Florida court from rigging the recount to favor the Dems. Al Gore can thank the arrogant Clintons for his loss.

St Augustine, Florida USA

[CJ]

Mr. Finkelstein, One cannot honestly evaluate the merits of a presidency without also looking at the entire 545 Representatives. I must say that George W. has been dragging nothing less than dead weight this past term, with Ms. Pelosi, et al; she is dedicated to the downfall of this country. Let alone, the mainstream media which is providing no great service to the citizens of this country. Gore did not win in 2000, and we'd be in worse shape if he did win. B.Hussein Obama's marketing strategists promise "Change," yeah right, we'll get "change" all right. Bread lines and work camps! Better wake up America, before we are "changed" to Amerika- the Socialist Regime.

[B Saker]

Jimmy Carter was unlucky to have the Shah of Iran's fall and the consequent hostage crisis occurr on his watch. Does anyone believe that Ford could have prevented this, or avoided the anti-US reaction, given that the Shah had been installed in a coup against a democratic ruler by one of his Republican predecessors (Eisenhower)?
He was also unlucky to inherit the 4-fold oil price increase and other economic problems originating in the Nixon years.
Carter was the first to highlight the need for energy efficiency, to bring peace between Isarel and an enemy Arab state (Egypt), and to use human rights as a means to undermine the Soviet Union (subsequently continued with the Hollywood touch of Ronald Reagan).
His administration also hit on the idea of making Afghanistan Russia's Vietnam. This, and the human rights approach, subsequently helped to bring down the 'Evil Empire'.
Would Ford have outdone all this? Not likely.

[NC]

The greatest missed opportunity was failure to elect Barry Goldwater in 1964. The left thought he was slightly nuke-crazed. Vietnam would now be free and possibly, Eastern Europe's freedom would have occurred 16 years earlier.

Alternatively, Johnson was a disaster who lost Vietnam and instituted disastrous domestic social policies.

[John Goodrick]

Do the voters get it right? That depends on basic political beliefs. If a person believes in monarchy, then the king is always right. If a person belives in theoarchy then the Theoarch is always right. But in a democracy, the people are always right. Living in a democracy implies the consent to abide by the rules and the decisions of the majority. In the US we have an electoral college system designed to protect the smaller states from the larger. It is this electoral college that is always right. We do not live in a direct democracy. If we wanted to have a direct democracy we would change the ways we do things, but until then we must support the system we have. No matter how often uninformed remarks are made about the election of 2000 the fact that the president that took office is the one who won the majority in the college.

[AJ]

No. With a public educational system that puts the US at 20+ BELOW nations smaller and less rich than America, which has millions upon millions who read, at best, on an elementary school level and whose opinions, if they have any, are based on whatever was viewed on the last MTV show, or word of mouth from their equally ill-educated peers. Combine that with an electronic election system so open to corruption by design or intent, there is little of hope of seeing daylight at the end of this current election season. In other words, mediocrity will win over all else.

[Justin Other Smith]

God! The Bush-bitchers are sad. Bush won/Gore lost...
America would probably like to elect a Democrat to the Presidency but the Democrat Party only seems to nominate losers. Which might be a good thing for the rest of the world. Imagine if America had a 'Putin' for President.....

[ARJAY]

Do you really think we would have been better off with a loon like Al Gore as Pres when 9/11 came along. He would have reported the event to the Hague and wrung his hands for the rest of his term when the brigands did not respond to law. As for Kerry, he is a self-centered doofus who would be as bad as J. Carter who was inargueably the worst pres in the 20th century. Sure W is not a space scientist, but if the Dems had not spend all their energy trying to destroy him instead of accepting his many offers of cooperation, maybe his administration would have been much more successful. Enough blame to go around to both major parties.

[Michel Jutharat]

Next November US will choose its new leader.
- If they choose Obama it will be wrong.
- If they choose Mc Cain it will be wrong also.
None of them is able to restore American economy and values. Both will continue to print too much dollars...

[Rob]

To say that the electorate always gets it right is wishful thinking; that they are always wrong, little more than cynicism.

Rarely, if ever, does the defeated candidate get his or her turn in power - other than in thoroughly changed circumstances - but the impression of what they would have achieved remains. Whether you believe that, say, Gore would have made a better President than Bush (or vice versa) depends entirely on your opinion of the men involved.

If you see, as many do, George Bush as an incompetent President, the unknown alternative - be it Gore, Kerry, McCain or whomever - will inevitably appeal. If, however, you see Gore as a self-important weakling, it would be natural to assume the worst of his reactions to major events.

The fact remains, Al Gore did not become President in 2000. And we have no way of knowing how it would've turned out.

[vic]

Oh, my, you have GOT to be so kidding, right??
The past four elections, and it looks like it will be five in a row, the US has cheerfully selected by far the least experienced, most extreme, most shallow, most divisive, most Messiah-complexed,most wishful thinking, most "I-can-talk-my-way-out-of-anything," least qualified, etc. person around. I mean, who screens these people??
Dark British humor this article must surely be!!

[Gary M]

Robert, you really think that Gore never won that election? Am sorry but calling others a Loon is a bit rich.

Of course Gore won that election, unfortunately the country needed Bush, and by the country I mean those who benefited most from having Bush in power. And no, that does not include the people of the US.

[Abdul Majeed]

Do the American electorate ever get it right? Never. Do large lobbyists run the show? Always.

[Garth Carthy]

This is a pointless article and a pointless debate. All presidents are rubbish because they are backed by big business and have to kow-tow to big business to stay in power. It's the same in Britain with our Prime Ministers and other leading politicians. The system will not allow a decent leader or uncorrupted political party to thrive. That surely is the simple truth and only an idiot will not be able to see it. The rich controlling elite have always controlled politics because they control the economy and they control the media.

[Mary Fernandez]

Given the choices, YES.

Nixon was actually a very good President despite Watergate - opening up to China, the EPA, non proliferation agreements with Russia.

Gore was, is and always will be a disaster.

Hubert Humphrey!?! Lovely man, great Senantor, dreadful President. I can't even believe someone could mention him with a straight face.

So, hate Bush all you want. Hate Nixon. Hate whoever. The alternative was always worse.

[Flossie666]

I think the question is not did we get it right, but whether the American John or Jane Q. Public is heard when we cast our vote. Even though McCain put his name on a campaign reform bill, it is till not enough! And yes, I'm upset that my Florida primary vote won't be counted!!
The American vote is influenced too much by the hand of special interest groups. McCain is beholden to stock holders of companies with military contracts and bankers who looted the mortgage system, and Obama's coffers come from trial lawyers, funded by Gulf State Sheiks and Saudis,(related to the same McCain funding sources). Our political race is reduced to who has the best talking points on TV. The former White House press secretary Scott McClellan was right about the press being too timid about investigating events leading up to the Iraqi war. Well, the press exhibits the same timidness leading up to the 2008 elections.

[vic]

You are SO kidding us, right? The stupidity of American voters has given democracy a very bad name right now.
In the last four elections (and it looks like it will soon be five in a row), Americans have cheerfully voted for the least experienced, least qualified, shiftiest, shallowest, most divisive, most extreme, most "I-can-sweet-talk-my-way-out-of-any-problems," etc. candidate. Who screens these people anyway? Americans and their passion for entertainment have done the cause of democracy little good for the past 16 years.

[Kendall]

Certainly we Americans are far from perfect, but as a whole, yes we do get it right. You have the crazies of the world and in our own country who have a microscopic sensitivity to every failing of the US, but on balance we've done a pretty good job. No nation in the history of the world with comparable world power has acted with as much restraint as we have.

Honestly, I believe it's been too easy for us in recent times. It's left way to much time for overactive imaginations to invent issues to be offended at.

[Mete Metin]

You need to be a clever person to be able become a PM in UK.
Can you say the same thing for American presidents?

Voters have little say in USA politics. You need to be either millionaire or backed by big companies and get millions from them to be able to run an election campaign.

My MP was just an ordinary person. One day I saw him in the market and invited him to a community centre I worked at. He was very helpful. He did not receive millions from big companies so he did not owe anything to anyone. So he was an independent politician.
Can you say the same thing for American politicians?
How can American people get it right or wrong when they have no choice as all the American parties represent the interest of oil companies, weapon companies , tobacco companies and other multi national companies such as fast food. There is little they can do to change the system in favour of general public. However I still have hopes for OBAMA and looking forward to see if he can make any differnece.

[Lynne]

This question assumes there is a right candidate. Often, for many of us, the election is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Mohammed]

This is an extremely tough question to answer. As the current president proves, we Americans can be forced to make election decision when given enough fear to do so. But as horrible as George Bush is, I question whether another man in his place would have made a better president. As much as I love Al Gore, I wonder if he would have made all the "right" decisions that Bush got wrong after 9/11. Even though I voted for Kerry in '04, I still wonder how and if he would have been able to solve the Iraq quagmire. Unlike every other country in the world with a democratic process, we happen to be the most powerful so the actions of our presidents hold that much more presence in history. Hindsight is always 20/20 but when we vote for the president, we vote with the hope that we're making the right decision. Whether it turns out to be the case is for the historians to say.

[Luke]

Sometimes we get it right. I believe John Kerry would have made a much better President than Bush. I'm reluctant to embrace Gore, in retrospect and after having doing more homework on him. Clinton was the only suitable choice in the 90s. Much like Barack Obama is now. He might not be the best and he may not change the country significantly, if elected. But America has to shuffle things up every eight years or so. Some of our depts, such as defense, justice, state, etc are so massive, the electorate knows not to let them be dominated by only one party's appointments. McCain is just bad for business. I think that's the real reason he won't win. Consumer spending is everything here, 70% or more of GDP. And right now consumer confidence is awful and 80% of the country think it's on the wrong track. If Obama loses, the left would just be devastated. Big business won't let that happen. They need to get us spending more. They don't care who's in power, they care about access, baby, access! Soft fascism, and we all love it here. But I think Obama could be a very bright President. The Left needs this victory.

[Jill]

Americans don't have the full experience of socialism that the UK has, so the US tends to drift left from neglect or sleepiness before someone like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton wakes them up again. Some people think now is the time we're asleep, but O's radical revolutionary connections, preference for every other nation except the US, his extreme left voting record, his platform that could have been pulled directly from The Communist Manifesto, as well as, the Democratic Congress's suicidal ban on the lifeblood of our economy (oil) and new global threats from imperial Russia are all combining to energize Americans to stand up for themselves. The famous phrase, "Don't Tread on Me" applies. Americans choose rightly when they remember who they are.

[davelnaf]

Yes, it's true that American voters always get it right. We elect the right man or the lesser of two evils. Either way you choose to view the current contest McCain wins.

[Carey H.]

I think that too much emphasis is being placed on the media-centric view of the American Presidents. For example, yes Nixon tarnished his own legacy and the Presidential Office with Watergate. But he also ended the war in Vietnam, opened relations with China, and instituted the all-volunteer military.

Any given Administration is a reflection not only of the person occupying that position, but also of the Congress and general mood of the country. It's easy to say that Gore would not have instituted the hateful PATRIOT Act had he been President, but such arguments hold no weight. After all, the PATRIOT Act, War in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, and other atrocities of the Bush Administration could not have happened without the consent--and approval--of Congressional Democrats (including Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama).

We Americans won't ever get the election right until we have a more open electoral system instead of our current 2 party cartel. Our winner-take-all process discourages anything but the party line. We should institute proportional representation in State Congressional seats, and force "None of the Above" to appear on every ballot.

And lastly (thank you, dear author, fol allowing my long post), can we please stop with the "Gore won the 2000 election" discussion? I despise Bush, but the electoral system is axiomatic. The process for determining the winner of an election is decided by the people who arbitrate that process. Remember that the U.S. Constitution allows each State to determine its own method of choosing Presidential electors--they don't have to allow a popular vote at all!

[David Gwilliam]

I think the tragedy was the election of 1976. The Kissinger years were inevitably dominated by getting out of Vietnam and yet the opening to China was an incredible breakthrough. I have always wondered what initiatives Henry Kissinger would have come up with had Gerald Ford been elected and without Vietnam to bog Kissinger down.

[Justin]

How can one decide if the loser could govern better than the winner? Who's to decide that Gore would have handled 9/11 better than Bush? The 90's were a completely different circumstance than 2000+, so to say that "..often the winner wasn't much good, but always the winner was better able to conduct the business of government than was the loser" is a rather naive statement. Do you have a crystal ball?

[Lynne]

Of course, Ford should have won over Carter. He did not, courtesy of a nasty battle from Reagan, who set the pattern Hillary Clinton now emulates. And GW Bush should not be President, but rather than Gore, it should have been McCain, who would have won except for the Bush smear campaign in the South.

But what most miss in any case is that the US President has an extraordinary small amount of power unless his own party controls Congress. And even then, look at how little Bill Clinton managed even though the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. Of course, his problem was that he was focused on...things other than health care policy and global warming, shall we just leave it at that?

[Roger]

Sometimes, but with Dubya America got it very wrong indeed!

[Andrew Peterson]

It's not that the people get it right, it is that the people get the leader they deserve. They got Jimmy Carter because they were looking for truth and honesty after the lies of Nixon and the failure of Vietnam. They got Reagan because they were prepared to make the economic sacrifices to get it right after an economic downturn. They got Dubya because they were ignorant and arrogant. What are they now? Are they smarter, more outward looking and hoping to change their approach to diplomacy and world events? Or are they still ignorant and arrogant and want to stick two fingers up to everyone else? It is in the hands American people. Choose wisely.

[Mike Alea]

I am from Florida, the contested state of the 2000 election. Gore did not win the election in 00' in every re-count (even one done by the NY Times) showed Bush winning. I voted for Bush twice and I have to admit he is horrible and he blew every chance he had to make it better. However, the chices we had were equally bad. No, we do not always get it right but we do not always get in wrong either. This election promises to be one of the most interesting in several years.

[Gabriel]

The proposition is completely absurd applied to either country.

Compare and contrast:

Peel, Russell, Palmerston, Derby, Disraeli, Gladstone, Salisbury.

Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Major, Chaimberlain, Macdondald, Macmillan.

Are you totally off your tree?

[Paul Joseph]

We never really know what the alternative might have been. However, David Gergen's Eyewitness to Power is worth a read for the chapter on Reagan alone. It gives a very different picture from the one I had living in the US at the time (that he was an idiot). Nations can and do get it wrong. Nazi Germany. China. America is not immune from collective stupidity but has a govt. with many more built-in correctives than most.

[Rob Holt]

Response to Andrew Peterson comment dated 19 AUG 2008:

Your stating that Bush's election reflects the arrogance and ignorance of the American citizenry, highlights why a majority of Americans continue to hold a disdain for Europeean political opinion. It is less important for us to have glossy, articulate leadership with superficial appeal than to have leadership willing to unapologetically identify global problems. Meanwhile, Western European leadership avoids making tough decisions and sacrifices through the "noble" objection to American "cowboy-ism". Truthfully, Western European impotence has ultimately proven very costly in terms of American lives and prosperity. So, it's not ignorance with which we make our decisions; it's, in fact, with greater long-term clarity and observance of our trans-Atlantic neighbors' problem-solving abilities.

[Daphne Kenward]

G W BUSH stands for exactly what the words good for nothing really means. Who voted for this idiot knows the answer, does Americans ever gets it right, the answer is NO.

[Alex]

Don't you think it's a wrong election system.

[SusanL]

You are kidding, right?!

The question should be does the American electorate ever get it right?

Based upon recent elections (at least 1972 +) the answer is a resounding No.

[J Edgar Swoop]

Hell yes. History is made going forward, not looking back imagining what might have been. It becomes how it is, not how we might have liked it to be. Pull up your boot straps and keep marching forward. Those who lay down wishing get rolled over. It is a trait of the liberal mind set. They make a lot of noise, and frequently impede the process, but reality always prevails. Those with vision and a work ethic win and those with their hands out loose. I think we just saw it in the Olympics in Beijing. Those who work hardest usually win and no one gets a free ride.

[jonas]

ermm... Adlai Stevenson over Eisenhower? Twice

[Peter]

Yes, I do believe that we get it right most of the time. 2000 & 2004 may look questionable in the rear-view mirror. They were right at the time because the opponents were worse. I really doubt there were as many "enthusiastic" Bush voters as there were anti-Gore/Kerry voters. It has always amazed me that such a seemingly important job rarely attracts the best and brightest this country has to offer.

[Brian Watson]

Any American who exercises their right and casts a vote gets it right. All the rest is just semantics. We sit here and judge with the benefit of hindsight. None of us can predict the future, so we do the best we can in the present. We vote. We try to balance the power in our three arms of government. We try to make informed decisions. Some vote with their heads, some with their hearts. We do what we think is best, and place our vote where we believe that it will do the most good. The only time we get it wrong, is when we sit at home on election day and allow others to decide for us.

[Andrew Pandap]

The comment that Nixon moved the GOP to the right on race relations is ludicrous. He dragged a party of segregationists into the 20th century. His China overture had great political and economic consequences that are still playing out, and surely hastened the demise of the Soviet Union. He was paranoid. He dishonoured his office. But Humphrey was nothing but a tax and spend liberal who lacked Nixon's clear vision that America's prosperity depended on globalisation of trade and new alliances. I walked precincts for McGovern in 1972, but it's clear to me now that Nixon lived up to his campaign slogan. He WAS the one.

[AB]

Of course not. All elections are decided 40-something to 50-something. If 49% of the voters can be wrong, then 51% can be wrong. Regardless of how you define "wrong." Anyway, you are erecting a strawman, since 90% of the world, and most of America, knows U.S. voters got it wrong in 2004.

And to Peter's comment, I think it's not that the job fails to attract at least some of the brightest; it's that the brightest are seldom attractive to enough of the people.

[DrBubb]

"I advanced the idea that since universal suffrage the UK voters had never got the election result wrong."

SURELY YOU JEST!
The Labour government has taken all manner of stupid decisions, which helped to increase debt, create a housing bubble, and undermine pensions in the past several years. Most of these actions were taken by that villain chancellor Brown, who is now the worst PM in history, after being the most destructive chancellor ever. If you really believe that Labour was the best choice the last election, then you truly deserve the House Price crash and the depression which is headed you way!

[Clive]

Those commenting about bush in 2000 and Bushs loss may also remember that he was voted for in 2004. There is some blame!

[Clive]

Those commenting about bush in 2000 and Bushs loss may also remember that he was voted for in 2004. There is some blame!

[Cloma]

"We get it right" for us. This is our election, not the world's.

[Miriam McNamara]

You get it so wrong it’s even a joke! Not only did you not elect Bush once but you actually let him into the White House twice!!! WHAT THE HELL WERE YE THINKING??? Its just laughable that someone who dose not have a firm grasp of the English language getting elected twice. Watching him be a total hypocrite when hoping that no-one will see the similarities between what America did to Iraq and what Russia did to Georgia. Seriously people are ye that stupid??? Do the right thing this time please, your actions affect everyone! OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

[Neil Watkinson]

Your question is slightly wrong - it should be do the American public EVER get it right? Of course, by definition they always do as a nation deserves the leader it chooses but it does seem sad from this side of the pond that an outgoing admininstration can create a reactionary response at the ballot box with non-existent security scares and so-called moral initiatives - despite the outgoing leadership being amongst the most immoral in American history! I've got to go for Obama - despite his obvious lack of substance - as frankly, McCain looks even more terrifying than Bush! Good luck to our brothers over the water!

[Margaret Mary]

Clinton did not address the terrorist attacks that began with the 1993 bombing of the WTC. He never even went up to NYC to see the damage and loss of life. This continued to be his pattern throughout his terms. He hid and watched the polls. Did we get it wrong about Bubba? O Hell Yeah!

[James V]

"We get it right" for us. This is our election, not the world's.

Posted by: Cloma | 26 Aug 2008 08:25:15
------------------------

Well my dear Cloma, these would have been your elections indeed if you would stop messing with the other countries' internal affairs. As long as this is the cornerstone on US foreign policy, I'm afraid we (non-US citizens) have as much right to voice an opinion as you guys...hell, who knows, maybe in a few years we might even get a chance to vote!!

[Joe Pepe NYC]

CaptBlackEagle IS WRONG!!
You can not go fishing too often sir.
That is a scientific fact.
Everyone knows a day fishing is never regreted on ones death bed.
CaptBlackEagle keep fishing.
No guilt.

[Joe Pepe NYC]

"who dose not have a firm grasp of the English language getting elected twice. Seriously people are ye that stupid??? Do the right thing this time please, your actions affect everyone! OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT"
Posted by: Miriam McNamara
Count the spelling mistakes and run on sentences.
Miriam can't write or spell well.
She's kind of dumb.

[Wilf Proudfoot]

whoever won USA would have gone into Iraq .When you become the worlds' richest nation you become the weorld' policeman