ABSTRACT
Charles O. Jones argues that the Framers of the Constitution intentionally set elections and presidential terms of office to coincide with the calendar, not the emergence of issues. No part of the Constitution provides even hints at holding elections “as a result of a crisis or some issue configuration.” 1 Yet presidential elections are often viewed as representations of which candidate’s policy proposals the public endorses. This has led some presidents to conclude that they have a mandate to enact the policy proposals they set forth during the campaign. Indeed, even presidential hopefuls like George W. Bush have invoked the language of mandates: “If you give me your trust, I will honor it.… Grant me a mandate, and I will use it.” 2 It is for this reason that the party platforms and the promises set out during presidential campaigns take on special meaning. They are the precursors to the agenda of every new administration. And the success or failure of presidents in enacting that agenda is often evaluated in terms of whether they had the mandate of the people. Further, the salience of the issues and the clarity of candidates’ issue positions during the presidential campaign affect the extent to which issues matter when voters go to the polls. This, in turn, determines the agenda for the new government, which often contributes in a significant way to public policy outcomes.
