Mandates in representative democracy

There has been a lot of talk about mandates lately, however a lot of it seems to ignore the obvious problem of mandates in representative democracy. I would like to point out some of the ways that the debate I have seen here oversimplifies the issues.

Our elections are never a referendum on a single issue.

No issue ever truly boils down to two options as presented by the two major parties.

The only genuine mandate a party gets is by holding power in parliament and being able to pass legislation. There is no other measure.

Representative democracy has always rested on the premise that elected officials negotiate on behalf of the people they represent and that the outcome is determined by negotiation after the election, not by the election itself. Political parties have to some extent reduced the unknown and unpredictable factor in this, which is probably the main reason for their popularity despite their faults, but it is absurd to suggest it has removed the expectation or the need for post election negotiations completely.

It is my view that parties should reflect the wishes of their supporters, reflect what they stand for and do what they think is right. Not to try to second guess democracy. Election time is when they get judged on their performance and if necessary, corrected. Any time a party rejects their own policy due to an obvious mandate, this is a calculated move to avoid bleeding more votes, and a necessary one for the survival of the party in cases where they are in a position to block the change in the senate, but would lose even worse at the next election if they did so.

Some alternative measures I have seen include:

A ruling party only has a mandate to legislate based on what polls show is most popular.

A ruling party only has a mandate to legislate based on specific guarantees made during the previous election campaign.

Coalition or minority governments have no mandate to do anything.

Longy is perhaps the member who carries on about this the most, yet it is also his position that a political party should be able to win government and pass legislation (with a mandate) with less than 50% support and theoretically as low as 11%, and reject the wishes of the other 89%. He appears to think that the whole point of an election is to fulfill his strange notions of fairness to political parties rather than to enact the will of the majority. His concept of a mandate appears to rest on his own personal gut feeling about what the public wants and about how an election outcome should be interpreted. It is a naive view that rejects the reality of representative democracy.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:07pm:


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:43pm:


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:05pm:


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:24pm:


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 11:04am:


BTW, here is a suggestion that would overcome many of the problems inherent in representative democracy, without losing the obvious benefits:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

(of course, Longy rejects this also, because it might allow the majority to achieve their goals without filtering it through the vested interests of his favourite political party)

What is a MANDATE?

That is the question that 1st needs to be answered.

Here the answer seems to be authority to enact legislation free from interference or change, that has been contested during an election campaign.

Libs argue that Howard had a mandate for the GST because he focused an election campaign on it, it also fits nicely that Tony has spent the last 2 years saying he'll Axe the Tax, so apparently he will have one & therefore should be supported by Labor in the Senate to repeal the CT.

As I pointed out last night this is nothing to do with mandates but a fishing expedition to help Tony get out of the problem of a difficult senate & promises of DD elections ASAP if they don't secede to his demands.

Quote:

Here are some more examples of Longy promoting and at the same time complaining about the will of the majority. He even suggests that a government should pass unpopular but necessary legislation. Any more backflips and we will have to start calling him Tony.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 11:59am:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 19^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 7:41pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:


gold_medal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Sorry couldn't resist that comment.

A mandate is where a party goes to an election with a CLEAR policy platform and wins the election.

The carbon tax was not mandated for example but the GST was.

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:


No John, that was a LABOR policy, for a mandate to be honored it must be a LIBERAL policy
Liberal governments have a Mandate for everything by virtue of being elected, where as Labor never have a mandate no matter if its a single issue campaign & they receive 90% of the vote.
As Tony pointed out with the ETS/CPRS- Rudds CC policy, we the punters were brainwashed didn't really mean it & are lucky we have people like Tony & Nick to tell us what we ACTUAL want.

Swagman wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:



And you think I'm spinning out? i thought labors election platform was pretty clear regarding the ETS ... what part were you confused over?

The Lord giveth (Man Dates) & the Lord taketh (Man Dates)!

In this instance, the Lord is the voting Public AND in the foreseeable future, the Lord (the Public) is likely to give & take, much more regularly than the past, as they "dice" with Political Parties, to see who can improve a worsening Economy.

It will be a long process!

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:


thus speaks the supporter of a minor party who can never hope to have a mandate for anything so therefore he refutes the notion that anyone else can.

Mandates exist, but they exist in the universe of 'the big boys' not the pitiful sub-culture of minor parties.

Mandates of course are MORAL arguments which is of course why a Greens supporter has not the slightest clue.