democracy and a valid majority

[rogespeed]

just thinking regarding democracy rule and elections whereby the "majority" prevails as defining the " will of the people" .

When i think of a major issue , minor issue relating to a problem - i consider in terms of significant values of difference , now applying to election results , is it reasonably valid to consider that the majority has won if they have won by only a small margin ?

Should a 1% difference in voting be considered a majority consenus that reasonably reflects the " will of the people" or should such a small margin be considered invalid in expressing the " will of the people " ( will and people being singular )

How can a 51% for 49% against be considered morally valid as expressing the " will of the people" ?

or even a 55% / 45% split

Does 60% for , seem more valid in expressing the " will of the people"

Should the " will of the people" be defined by any % greater than 50% ( 2 candidates for in context simplicity)  whereby in some elections a small minority 0.1% be allowed to dictate the outcome and so still be considered the " will of the people"

I am inclined to consider that in an election a certain minimum percentage significantly greater than 50.1% is required for a valid outcome that reflects the " will of the people"

Is say  50.1%  a valid majority that defines a singular will of a singular people ?

[4channel]

I have to say that this  is a good question. Was it Aaron Russo who said ....  "Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner". I'm sure someone else said it before him.

[domino-710]

Any majority is +1.

[not_for_sale2024]

I think you need to break down who the people are that vote and why they make their choices. For example, in the recent US election the very rich may have made their choices to protect and improve upon their wealth, the poor to try and improve their chances of getting work and earning a decent income. The police, nurses and doctors probably made decisions greatly based upon Covid and civil violence. Younger people were probably concerned about their futures and the environment. Black Americans would have focused on equality and poverty while many white Americans would have wanted to keep a Divided States - white power. Then there are the die hard Republican and Democrat voters who would have voted for their party no matter what.

I don't view the "will of the people" as being a collective group with a common will. In fact I deplore some of the reasons why people may vote for the party I choose. But in the end the party with the most votes should be the winner IMO, even if it's by a very small number of votes. After all, it's a political election where all is not fair in love and war! We the people are made up of many types, including the good, the bad and the ugly. The "will of the people" is a myth, there is nothing singular about "the people" in 2020.

[rogespeed]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Any majority is +1.

---

500,000 vs 500,001 ? is that a valid representation of the (singular) will of the (singular) people ( being the singular nation of citizens )

[domino-710]

You asked for a ' valid majority '.

It boils down to ' majority ' - not equal - but more.

+1 is all it takes.

That is the majority.

[davewil1964]

So what would you consider the 1998 Australian Federal election?

Labor got 51% of the two-party preferred, but the Coalition got 55% of the Reps seats.

So was it gerrymandering? Labor getting too many votes in safe seats? The Coalition offsetting that by scraping wafer-thin margins in the seats they won? A combination?

Was that a valid majority? If so, why? If not, why was there not rioting in the streets?

[rogespeed]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

So what would you consider the 1998 Australian Federal election?

Labor got 51% of the two-party preferred, but the Coalition got 55% of the Reps seats.

So was it gerrymandering? Labor getting too many votes in safe seats? The Coalition offsetting that by scraping wafer-thin margins in the seats they won? A combination?

Was that a valid majority? If so, why? If not, why was there not rioting in the streets?

---

did that not in the end create a more decisive outcome in future elections ? ie a higher % win and if so is that more desirable ?

[davewil1964]

---

@rogespeed wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

So what would you consider the 1998 Australian Federal election?

Labor got 51% of the two-party preferred, but the Coalition got 55% of the Reps seats.

So was it gerrymandering? Labor getting too many votes in safe seats? The Coalition offsetting that by scraping wafer-thin margins in the seats they won? A combination?

Was that a valid majority? If so, why? If not, why was there not rioting in the streets?

---

did that not in the end create a more decisive outcome in future elections ? ie a higher % win and if so is that more desirable ?

---

That hardly answers the question. My post was directly relevant to your OP. You seem to be shifting the goalposts. And subsequent elections don't matter. Witness the 2019 election where the Greens garnered over 10% of the vote in the Reps, but got 1 (out of 151) seat. Democracy in action - by rights the Greens should have got about 15.

It's not how it works. Regardless of the popular vote, the party/coalition with the most seats forms Government.

[rogespeed]

Anyhow with electoral fraud being canvassed in some regions ....

A 55% " decisive win" for full electoral votes would put to rest any vote result contention

but what of marginal wins less than 55% ? " devisive wins" , can not have null results