Government legitimacy

[[email protected]]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

[Wilber]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

Yes, unless you want to limit it to only two parties and have no regional representation.

[guyser]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

sure why not?

[White Doors]

what a dumb question

[Figleaf]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

Depending on your definition of 'legitimate': yes, or no.

[Saturn]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

No, a government should elected by the majority of voters. If no single party receives 50+% of the popular vote, the government should be a coalition government (2 or more parties). Having a government elected with as few as one-third of the votes is undemocratic - the majority does not have a voice.

[blueblood]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

No, a government should elected by the majority of voters. If no single party receives 50+% of the popular vote, the government should be a coalition government (2 or more parties). Having a government elected with as few as one-third of the votes is undemocratic - the majority does not have a voice.

I agree, if I may add, there is a problem with people who just don't vote in the first place that there is a huge problem.

[gc1765]

Yes, unless you want to limit it to only two parties and have no regional representation.

Or a different electoral system....

[Wilber]

Yes, unless you want to limit it to only two parties and have no regional representation.

Or a different electoral system....

That would be a different electoral system. What do you suggest?

[Wilber]

No, a government should elected by the majority of voters. If no single party receives 50+% of the popular vote, the government should be a coalition government (2 or more parties). Having a government elected with as few as one-third of the votes is undemocratic - the majority does not have a voice.

We have one, it's called a minority government. The majority (the combined opposition) have the power of life and death over the government. How can you say they don't have a vote? There have been coalitions before but first you have to get those parties to put aside their differences and work together as a government for the good of the country. The only time that ever happens is when there is a dire national emergency. Without one, they will always put their own political interests first.

[August1991]

This thread should be in the "Moral & Religious" category since that is where we usually discuss such questions of political philosophy.

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

Since you don't define the word "legitimate" or even "democracy", it's rather hard to answer your question.

All governments take decisions concerning the collective.

IMV, "democracy" is an arbitrary way to decide who gets to be government. The significant feature of democracy is that it provides a civilized way to change governments (other than death). IOW, when a government is "bad", democracy is a system that allows someone new to become the government.

For example, if you think George W. Bush is a "bad" president, you know that he will be replaced soon. The US is a "democracy". Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro will still be heads of government. Zimbabwe and Cuba are not democracies.

Even democratic governments rarely if ever take the best decision possible for everyone in a collective. Democratic government is an inefficient institution. If you can devise a better way to take such decisions, you will win a Nobel Prize in economics. (I happen to think someone will devise a better way in the next century or two.)

----

For some reason, you seem to think that a "rule of 50%" makes a government "legitimate". Why should that be?

Let me illustrate briefly (one aspect of) the problem with an example.

In a small village of 100 people, let's say 80 think it would be worth $50 each to watch the pyrotechnics of the other 20 people's houses going up in flames. By majority vote, the 80 win even though the value of the loss to the 20 is $100,000 each. Do the math. Is 50% a good rule for "legitimacy"? Is that even the problem?

[gc1765]

That would be a different electoral system. What do you suggest?

Instantaneous run-off. The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. The person with the lowest votes would be crossed off the list. The people who voted for this candidate, their second choice would now count. Continue until there is one person left, and they would have over 50%. This is similar to how parties choose leaders, I believe. The best part is, you could have as many parties as you like and it wouldn't matter, because you don't have to worry about "splitting the left" or "splitting the right".

[Wilber]

The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference.

Candidates for what?

[[email protected]]

In the general election of 2000 the party that formed the majority government was NOT supported by 3 out of 4 electors.

How low can a government’s electoral support go before it becomes illegitimate?

[Wilber]

In the general election of 2000 the party that formed the majority government was NOT supported by 3 out of 4 electors.

How low can a government’s electoral support go before it becomes illegitimate?

That would mean the Liberals only got 25% of the vote. They actually got almost 41%.

[Keepitsimple]

That would be a different electoral system. What do you suggest?

Instantaneous run-off. The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. The person with the lowest votes would be crossed off the list. The people who voted for this candidate, their second choice would now count. Continue until there is one person left, and they would have over 50%. This is similar to how parties choose leaders, I believe. The best part is, you could have as many parties as you like and it wouldn't matter, because you don't have to worry about "splitting the left" or "splitting the right".

Instantaneous Run-off. Gee, I've seen a number of iterations of voting systems but as simple as it is, I've not seen it presented in that form - must have missed it along the way. Off the top, I can't see anything wrong with it at all - makes good sense. Before we had computers, it may have been a little complicated and prone to error but now - it would be a breeze to tabulate. It seems to embody what Canadians in general like to do - find a way to comprimise. If someone can offer valid criticism, I'd love to hear it.

[Wilber]

That would be a different electoral system. What do you suggest?

Instantaneous run-off. The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. The person with the lowest votes would be crossed off the list. The people who voted for this candidate, their second choice would now count. Continue until there is one person left, and they would have over 50%. This is similar to how parties choose leaders, I believe. The best part is, you could have as many parties as you like and it wouldn't matter, because you don't have to worry about "splitting the left" or "splitting the right".

Instantaneous Run-off. Gee, I've seen a number of iterations of voting systems but as simple as it is, I've not seen it presented in that form - must have missed it along the way. Off the top, I can't see anything wrong with it at all - makes good sense. Before we had computers, it may have been a little complicated and prone to error but now - it would be a breeze to tabulate. It seems to embody what Canadians in general like to do - find a way to comprimise. If someone can offer valid criticism, I'd love to hear it.

It would ensure that an individual was elected with more than 50% of the vote but it would do very little to change the percentage of popular vote going to the party which forms the government.

[Saturn]

No, a government should elected by the majority of voters. If no single party receives 50+% of the popular vote, the government should be a coalition government (2 or more parties). Having a government elected with as few as one-third of the votes is undemocratic - the majority does not have a voice.

We have one, it's called a minority government. The majority (the combined opposition) have the power of life and death over the government. How can you say they don't have a vote? There have been coalitions before but first you have to get those parties to put aside their differences and work together as a government for the good of the country. The only time that ever happens is when there is a dire national emergency. Without one, they will always put their own political interests first.

Our political system allows governments to assume that once they get 35-40% the popular vote, they have the right to rule with impunity. In a minority situation this means that they are unwilling to work with opposition parties, they have great difficulty passing legislation (because they want it their way), and we end up seeing the extreme partisan bullshit in parliament that we are currently witnessing. A government that does not produce legislation and prefers to concentrate on partisan attacks instead of on looking after the country's interests is a disfunctional one that is more a of a detriment than a benefit.

In a situation where a government requires 50+% of popular support, we would not be witnessing the absurdities of QP and a completely paralyzed disfunctional government. Harper is unwilling to work with the opposition to pass legislation because he wants it done his own way. He is entirely concentrated on gaining another 5% of the popular vote by extending the life of his disfunctional government just to toss money at the public and engage in name calling and finger pointing in the meantime, so that he can get a majority and do things his own way. If he required 50+% of the popular vote, which he knows he'll never get, he would instead be trying to make parliament work.

[sideshow]

I actually like the current situation. It keeps the conservatives from acting with complete impunity, the liberals have been brought down a peg and aren't able to play "god" like the last ten years, and the NDP and BLOC still have enough votes and sway to push their agendas to a small degree.

I don't think that 50% is required to be a legitimate government under our current system. But I think it should be.

[Saturn]

That would be a different electoral system. What do you suggest?

Instantaneous run-off. The voter would rank the candidates in order of preference. The person with the lowest votes would be crossed off the list. The people who voted for this candidate, their second choice would now count. Continue until there is one person left, and they would have over 50%. This is similar to how parties choose leaders, I believe. The best part is, you could have as many parties as you like and it wouldn't matter, because you don't have to worry about "splitting the left" or "splitting the right".

This works well then you are choosing one person - like a party leader. There are 308 persons in Parliament. This proposal will do very little to ensure that the popular vote is fairly represented in the number of seats each party gets. With the enormous power and influence party leaders exert on their caucuses, we are not voting for people but for votes in Parliament (except for those few voters in 4 ridings who vote for a party leader). It's not the case that each riding sends its own representative to HOC - we send representatives of a party leader to HOC.

I favour STV (with ridings comprising entire provinces or 8-12 seats in provinces that have more seats than that ). That way regional representation is preserved without the disadvantage of ignoring the popular vote and giving governments majorities through the support of minorities.

[Wilber]

I favour STV (with ridings comprising entire provinces or 8-12 seats in provinces that have more seats than that ). That way regional representation is preserved without the disadvantage of ignoring the popular vote and giving governments majorities through the support of minorities.

We don't have rep by pop in this country in order to give regions representation which would otherwise have none and we don't have a two party system, so I unless you change that you will never be able to guarantee over 50% for the party which forms the government. STV has some good things going for it but when you put a bunch of seats in one voting pool you could wind up with most of the MP's being from one part of a region (the most populous) and other parts having no representatives within hundreds of miles. I think it could be a good provincial system but it would take some convincing for me to think it would make a good national system in a country this size.

Either way, as long as we have more than two parties there can never be a guaranty that the governing party will have a majority of the popular vote.

[jbg]

In a democracy can a government be legitimate if elected with less than 50% of the votes?

No, a government should elected by the majority of voters. If no single party receives 50+% of the popular vote, the government should be a coalition government (2 or more parties). Having a government elected with as few as one-third of the votes is undemocratic - the majority does not have a voice.

How, in a Westminister-based system, in G-d's name can you have a "coalition government" when the majority of MP's are of one party, but elected by, oh say, 37% of the popular vote, as a result of FTPT? And what's so great about coalitions, except giving excuses to the lead party as to why they're not keeping promises? (i.e. blaming coalition partners).

[Wilber]

How, in a Westminister-based system, in G-d's name can you have a "coalition government" when the majority of MP's are of one party, but elected by, oh say, 37% of the popular vote, as a result of FTPT? And what's so great about coalitions, except giving excuses to the lead party as to why they're not keeping promises? (i.e. blaming coalition partners).

They are rare but have happened, usually in wartime.

Canadian coalitions

British coalitions

[jbg]

They are rare but have happened, usually in wartime.

Canadian coalitions

British coalitions

Presumably, conscription would have been a confidence vote. What I take from that article is that the Borden coalition was a "one issue-one time" event. My point is that in the more typical scenario for a majority government, say a popular vote split of 42%-27%-18%-13% the formation of a coalition would be unnecessary and would deprive the people of accountable government, since the majority party could blame the coalition partners for failing to keep promises, saying, in effect "how many elections do you want"?

[Riverwind]

And what's so great about coalitions, except giving excuses to the lead party as to why they're not keeping promises? (i.e. blaming coalition partners).

FPTP systems tend to favour 'big tent' parties which accomodate a wide variety of views and tend to be centrist (the two party system in the US is a good example). Proportional systems tend encourage people to vote for parties with more extreme views. In both systems require a lot of behind the scenes horse trading to produce coherent policy. However, in a big tent party this horse trading goes on among allies who don't necessarily undermine their own electability by compromising. In a coalition the smaller parties need to justify their own existence and are less willing to compromise or will demand that symbolic gesters that benefit only the narrow cross section of voters that they happen to represent. The net result is PR systems end up being less democratic that FPTP systems.