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 ?

[davewil1964]

---

@rogespeed 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.

[rogespeed]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@rogespeed 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+% 

[domino-710]

---

@rogespeed wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@rogespeed 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.???

[rogespeed]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@rogespeed wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@rogespeed 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)

[davewil1964]

---

@rogespeed wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@rogespeed wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

---

@rogespeed 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?

[chameleon54]

---

@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..

[joztamps]

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.

[4channel]

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!

[rogespeed]

---

@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

[joztamps]

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.