Maybe France and the US aren’t so different after all. After President Bush barely scraped by in his campaign for re-election, winning the title of Commander in Chief by the slimmest of majorities, he boasted of having earned “political capital” which allowed him to pursue his agenda while ignoring the half of the country that does not agree with his policies.

After an election in France that brought out 85% of the voting population (okay… maybe our two countries aren’t as similar as I thought…) Nicolas Sarkozy, like President Bush, was elected by the slimmest of majorities: 53% of the vote in a two-horse race. The BBC is already reporting the election as a “resounding win” and Sarkozy’s PR people are, like the Bush administration in 2004 and the Democrats in 2006, calling the election a “political mandate.”

I understand that both administrations want to make the most of the win, and that it is easier to affect change when you’ve got a good momentum going. What these two officials, and majority of our own Congress, seem to forget is that nearly half of voters do not agree with them. And furthermore, the desires of half of the population should not be brushed aside or ignored. 53% is not a mandate. Nine out of ten is a mandate.

Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in a country that is viciously split over seemingly every shred of legislation? This idea that a slim majority gives elected officials a “mandate” to pursue one-sided policy and ignore half of their constituency is outrageous. People need to extract themselves from the media-fed concept of red states versus blue states and realize that we’ll all be better off if we give at least some consideration to the ideas and desires of those with whom we disagree. As the Republicans learned last November, a few votes can turn the tables… and nine out of ten farmers agree that you reap what you sow.