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 ?

[springyzone]

Of course it is not 'the will of the people'.

The party in power is simply the party that has won the majority of seats and some elections will be closer than others.

At any time, you'll probably have a sizeable group of people in any country that didn't actually vote for those in power. But those in power just have to do their best to represent the interests of all.

And in a democracy, voters have to accept that sometimes their preferred party will not win but as long as it governs legally, that has to be respected.

And you have to have some clear demarcation point to mark who has won or lost or otherwise there would be chaos. So the party with the majority is the logical choice although sure, sometimes it will be close.

[rogespeed]

---

@springyzone wrote:

Of course it is not 'the will of the people'.

The party in power is simply the party that has won the majority of seats and some elections will be closer than others.

At any time, you'll probably have a sizeable group of people in any country that didn't actually vote for those in power. But those in power just have to do their best to represent the interests of all.

And in a democracy, voters have to accept that sometimes their preferred party will not win but as long as it governs legally, that has to be respected.

And you have to have some clear demarcation point to mark who has won or lost or otherwise there would be chaos. So the party with the majority is the logical choice although sure, sometimes it will be close.

---

but if to close like 0.01% is effectively determined by a minority - is it not more valid for the majority to be relatively overwhelming at say  >+5% ?

[davewil1964]

Or -2%.

It's the number of seats. You can't expect a new election (with no government operating) every time the vote is close. THAT is not democratic. In this country we would never have a government.

There have been many instances of minority governments in history, and there will no doubt be many more. Politics is the art of the possible, not catering to an absolute, albeit small, majority.

[rogespeed]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

Or -2%.

It's the number of seats. You can't expect a new election (with no government operating) every time the vote is close. THAT is not democratic. In this country we would never have a government.

There have been many instances of minority governments in history, and there will no doubt be many more. Politics is the art of the possible, not catering to an absolute, albeit small, majority.

---

Just my contention is that 191 vs 123 Electoral votes at >55% for a win is arguably a more meaningful result than say results at 50.1%

or looking another way if results were 50.1% , 49.9% would that result really reflect the will of the people ?  As effectively half want one candidate and the half the other - "the people" kind of implies at least nominal unity - a singular entity , realistically as relected by a clear preference.

in reality one either just accepts the vote regardless or to settle the issue of a very close split preference by a 2nd vote of those marginal districts - of course should not make any difference but at least would be seen to allow additional thoughtful consideration and so the citizens more accepting of the results

but then again implied national disunity as reflected in very close voting results may be a designed requirement of the governing system and considered desirable 

[davewil1964]

There are 538 Electoral College votes. 270 required for a win. And that is only for the President. They have a bicameral parliament as well.

It could also be that voters aren't mugs and don't want governments to get the idea they have carte blanche.

Look what happened the last time a government had control of the Senate. I doubt we will again see that happen. We WANT checks and balances on government.