I want to know the percentage of 1) registered voters who cast ballots
for  president in 2004 , and 2) the percentage of eligible voters (the
entire electorate) who cast ballots for  president in 2004.

Voting-Age Population: 217.8 million 
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002957.html

Bush 60,608,582 51% 286 
Kerry 57,288,974 48% 252 
Nader 406,924 1%
Total 118,304,480 (plus a couple hundred thousand for votes for other candidates)


Registered Voters: 155,048,803
http://www.kpu.go.id/english/berita/lihat-dalam.php?ID=520&cat=Berita

PERCENTAGES:
1) registered voters who cast ballots for  president: 76.3%

2) the percentage of eligible voters (the entire electorate) who cast
ballots for  president: 54.3%

The exact #s will be slightly higher than this, but this is the
percentage that voted for Bush, Kerry, or Nader which is more than 99%
of the total vote.

Does the figure suggested,  218.8 million eligible adults, include the
2 million or so adults in prison?  In addition, in many states felons,
ex-cons, etc, in addition to those presently incarcerated, are
prohibited from voting while they are on parole, probation, or even
for life.  I'd suspect this number is several million more. But I am
satisfied for my purposes that a bit over 1/2 of the electorate voted;
about 1/2 of those voted for GW Bush. His mandate, therefore, rests on
the basis of demonstrated support of about 25% of the public.  Thanks

The important key is that his mandate is based on the majority of
people over 18 who cared to vote.  I'd like to think that at least 90%
of adults who are uneligible to vote are so because they did something
to deserve not to vote (there are clearly exceptions but certainly not
enough to tip the ballance of the election).  The almost 50% of
eligible voters who chose not to vote deserve no say in government no
matter how much they moan and complain.

Those who voted for Kerry...  well, unfortunately we can't all have
our way.  If Kerry had won then those who voted for Bush would feel
the same way.  You just can't please all the people all the time, and
our system is set up to please as many Americans as it can without
ignoring the rights of the minorities.  I prefer that greatly to what
I see in most countries around the world.  Those who don't prefer that
are always welcome to settle somewhere more appeasable.

Well, Jack of.. , among the very many reasons some worthwhile citizes
did not vote are suggestions that long lines, some requiring waits of
up to eight hours, were obstacles. I don't think I would have
waited(not peaceully anyway) for eight hours. Would you?
What is and is not  mandated?

Why not address the point that the mandate of GW Bush to govern, for
four years, some 218 million adults and maybe 70 million children,
plus uncounted millions of dogs, cats, farm animals, etc, is based on
the affirmation he received from just over 1/2 of 1/2 = 1/4 of that
218 million = 60.6 million people? Does democracy stop after the votes
are tallied? Does a 27.8% (of electorate) "mandate" justify
authoritarianism? Isn't that why our government has what are sometimes
euphemistically referred to as "checks and balances"?  Clearly, with
the fecklessness of the modern Democratic Party, there will not be a
lot of checking, but should there be?

The checks and ballances you refer to are the 3 branches of the
government.  Bush is certainly not an authoritarian government all by
himself.  The Judges that were appointed by previous presidents do
have much power (too much power according to most people).  The
congress made of elected officials from every state (where once again
people have the power to vote) as a whole entity have approximately
the same power as the president.

The democratic party lost alot of power over the last 4 years, that is
true.  From what I have been reading about democratic planners and
leaders, they are considering what views they stand for as a whole and
what views they pushed over the last couple elections and are
seriously considering changing their plans.  Obviously what they have
stood for hasn't been what the majority of American people want as a
basis for leadership.

That is only the federal level that we have looked at... which looking
at taxes controls about 2/3s of the governmental power over your life
(and probably the 2/3s that less specifically targets you as an
individual).
Elected officials in your state and locality also have significant
impact on your life and yet again people have the power to vote for
them.

To say that Bush has supreme power would be a clear misrepresentation
of his position and capabilities in that position.  Bush and the
congress also know that if they abuse their power then democrats will
rule both the white house and congress 4 years down the road.  They
will be on the lookout for what the American people want and what is
in the country's best interest... not just whatever whimsical ideas
pop into their minds on a given day.

Jack: You say: "Bush and the congress also know that if they abuse
their power then democrats will rule both the white house and congress
4 years down the road.  They will be on the lookout for what the
American people want and what is  in the country's best interest...
not just whatever whimsical ideas
pop into their minds on a given day."

I am unreassured by your confidence in the Bush regime. I am persuaded
the Bushies are delusional. What else could explain their expecting to
be welcomed by the Iraqis as liberators after having destroyed their
country twice in 12 years and imposing embargoes that in the decade
between the wars killed over 500,000 children under 5 years old for
lack of chlorine to purify drinking water.
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles.html

The arrogance demonstrated by the Bush regime is maddness. I expect
the reelection will encourage this and in the end, their overreaching
will destroy them (and maybe a large part of the population as well).
Given enough rope they will hang themselves.

Carl Reynolds
Sherwood. Oregon
http://www.quixote-quest.org/resources/national_international/Bush_Arrogance_091603.html

The belief you're referring to was a little different than you claim.  

The embargos did not kill nearly as many people as Saddam and his huge
military/personal spending did.  If Iraq had used it's oil money for
food as it was supposed to then Iraq would have been fed.
If you look past the few thousand Iraqis in 2003 who hated the US
enough to fight against it to any and all ends then you'd see millions
of people who were in the range of fairly indifferent to glad that
Saddam was gone and a new government was being set up.

Unfortunately now those few thousand have sabatuaged pipelines,
destroyed construction projects, assassinated new leaders, threatened
people who support the new government and ...  well, you get the
point.  These few thousand and their radicalism is now wearing on the
general public and the Iraqis are tired of the fighting and are now
more prone to blame the US than they were before.  If you want to
blame Bush for that I suppose there is a correlation, but in my
oppinion that's like blaming a wife for not pleasing her husband
enough so he cheats on her.

The blame can much better be traced to Saddam and his inhumane
treatment of his citizens, his lack of respect for the world, and the
people in Iraq who fight the efforts of setting up a new government. 
Bush did not expect open arms as you claim.  He expected minor
resistance and troubles that would diminish over time as the US helped
to develop the Iraq economy, create jobs and help provide a suitable
government for the people.

I can definately see where you're coming from, and I can agree that
Bush was too optimistic.  He tried to change things for the better
with a decent plan, but unfortunately the plan wasn't quite good
enough and there was more opposition than expected.  We'll see in the
next few years how Iraq fairs through the opposition.  I'd imagine the
US starting to diminish its forces there in late 2005 but probably
having a small force (perhaps 10,000 troops) stationed there
indefinately.  Of course Iraq will have its problems as every new
nation government does, but over time we should see that the Iraqi
people will be better off without Saddam.

Jack: You must be watching a lot of FOX TV if you think the war in
Iraq is going well enough to justify over 1300 US troops' lives, over
11,000 seriously wounded, $200+ (and counting) billions (that's
BILLIONS); not to mention causing a recruiting boom for al-Qaida and a
re-enlistment crisis  in our military.

Accusing Bush of being a bit over optimistic is a joke. Bush's huge
failure to look at the circumstances that I carefully described in my
previous comment amounts to pathalogical arrogaance. Read my
description again and check the links (500,000 very young chilren died
in Iraq due to the US refusal to allow chlorine for water purification
to pas through our embargo!).

The real absurdity is that FOX and CNN and the other corporate media
have been  able to fool gullible audiences into reelecting this regime
that has botched the war, foreign policy, the economy, the
environment, education, and nearly every government program they have
touched. It really shows the power of propaganda. (My advice  is to
use your internet browser and turn of FOX.

Carl Reynolds
Sherwood, Oregon
http://www.quixote-quest.org/resources/national_international/Democrat_Ideology_010505.html

I find it humorous that you claim that watching Fox TV when I see the
sources you supply.  Honestly, do you not think the makers of those
pages have more reason to be biased than Fox?  I mean, clearly these
sites have much more of a deliberate agenda than any credible news
source I've ever seen.

Obviously we could argue back and forth about the issues at hand about
Bush, but that will not get us anywhere since we clearly disagree and
that isn't going to change.  And you're right that the media isn't all
it should be... not by far. And I would like to leave you with the
thought that perhaps the places you receive information are not much
better (I would think worse, but that's oppinion of course).  If we
want the honest truth, perhaps we should take a tour of Iraq and ask
people all over the country how they feel in person.

Of course the situation is far more complicated than either of us have
made it sound and there is no way to wrap our heads or for anyone to
wrap their head around the entirety of it.