---

@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% ?

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.

---

@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 

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.