topic Re: democracy and a valid majority in Community Spirit

democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 05:15:42 GMT

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 ?

Re: democracy and a valid majority

4channel — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 05:32:12 GMT

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.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

domino-710 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 05:45:38 GMT

Any majority is +1.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

not_for_sale — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:02:58 GMT

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.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:05:43 GMT

@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 )

Re: democracy and a valid majority

domino-710 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:09:35 GMT

You asked for a ' valid majority '.

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

+1 is all it takes.

That is the majority.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

davewil1964 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:26:42 GMT

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?

Re: democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:53:23 GMT

@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 ?

Re: democracy and a valid majority

davewil1964 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:52:11 GMT

@rogevibe 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.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:44:58 GMT

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

Re: democracy and a valid majority

davewil1964 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:55:07 GMT

@rogevibe wrote:
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

I don't know. You tell me, given that 55-45 wins are the exception.

YOU raised the subject - what are your thoughts.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:16:15 GMT

@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogevibe wrote:
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

I don't know. You tell me, given that 55-45 wins are the exception.

YOU raised the subject - what are your thoughts.

By my reckoning 35 out of 52 States were "decisive" @55+%

Re: democracy and a valid majority

domino-710 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:20:40 GMT

@rogevibe wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogevibe wrote:
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

I don't know. You tell me, given that 55-45 wins are the exception.

YOU raised the subject - what are your thoughts.
By my reckoning 35 out of 52 States were "decisive" @55+%

What country has 52 States.???

Re: democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:29:31 GMT

@domino-710 wrote:
@rogevibe wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogevibe wrote:
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

I don't know. You tell me, given that 55-45 wins are the exception.

YOU raised the subject - what are your thoughts.
By my reckoning 35 out of 52 States were "decisive" @55+%
What country has 52 States.???

dunno ..

(* don't know)

Re: democracy and a valid majority

davewil1964 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 09:48:14 GMT

@rogevibe wrote:
@domino-710 wrote:
@rogevibe wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogevibe wrote:
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

I don't know. You tell me, given that 55-45 wins are the exception.

YOU raised the subject - what are your thoughts.
By my reckoning 35 out of 52 States were "decisive" @55+%
What country has 52 States.???
dunno ..

(* don't know)

But it was your reckoning. Surely you know what you're talking about?

Re: democracy and a valid majority

chameleon54 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:34:32 GMT

@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?

On other occasions the reverse has occurred, ie, Labor has formed government with a much lower percentage of the popular vote than the coalition. Is that gerrymandering too ? Quite possibly, but does that mean our founding fathers got it wrong ? The system was never designed to assist government to be formed by 50 % + 1 of the popular vote.

While a lot has changed with technology and social change over the decades, one thing has not really changed much since Federation.

That is Australia is a very large country, sparsely populated in rural areas and with most of the population concentrated in a few highly urbanised cities. While much of the population is city based, a disproportionate part of the countries economic wealth is generated in the regions. Sure there is still some manufacturing based in cities and our higher education system has been a model for other service based industries to follow, but it is largely rural based wealth that helps to prop up the living standards of our urban population.

Many city people simply don't have any real understanding of the challenges and importance of our mining and Agricultural industries or the difficulties of remote country people accessing even basic services. That is why our founding forefathers established the idea of electoral seats, each with a representative in Parliament. City people have vastly more seats than country people to reflect the population demographics, but there is still some positive bias towards rural representation in Parliament, in order to give rural people some voice in our democracy..

The system may not be perfect, but it works exceptionally well most of the time and I would hate to see our modern, self centred politicians meddle in something that has served the country exceptionally well............... If it aint broke, don't fix it..

Re: democracy and a valid majority

joztamps — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:36:01 GMT

In compulsory voting states like Australia, the number of people who vote against "the winner" virtually always outnumber the number of people who vote for "the winner", so "the winner" actually never has "a majority".

In optional voting states, eg the USA or UK, the number of people who vote for "the winner" never constitute anywhere near "a majority" of eligible voters.

So your question is moot.

Virtually all "democratic" governments are minority governments.

Re: democracy and a valid majority

4channel — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:04:45 GMT

People make decisions based on what they see and hear in the media. How can people make informed decisions when the media is controlled by a select few?? People voted for Howard when he (many say lied) said refugees were throwing their children in the water. The power of rthe media is evident.

Film chronicles children overboard scandal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NMk6L_4Bw4

This appealed to the racist mindset and it also added to and stoked the irrational fear and xenophobia. It won Howard extra votes. Hardly any critical analysiis by the "you know who "owned media. Many more examples.

We can never have democracy until we get fair media. Many people vote with influences based on fear and prejudice.

Go Kevin and Malcolm!

I hope they can achieve something!

Re: democracy and a valid majority

rogevibe — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:12:44 GMT

@joztamps wrote:
In compulsory voting states like Australia, the number of people who vote against "the winner" virtually always outnumber the number of people who vote for "the winner", so "the winner" actually never has "a majority".

In optional voting states, eg the USA or UK, the number of people who vote for "the winner" never constitute anywhere near "a majority" of eligible voters.

So your question is moot.

Virtually all "democratic" governments are minority governments.

Australia being the shining exception , with compulsory voting

Re: democracy and a valid majority

joztamps — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:56:42 GMT

Australian governments virtually never get a majority vote; the current one, as is the norm, got about 40% for it, and about 60% of the voters voted against it.