If one turns on American news these days (after President Trump was inaugurated a second time), the word “mandate” comes up frequently. I doubt many Republicans or Democrats would quarrel with the current Wikipedia definition:
In representative democracies, a mandate is a perceived legitimacy to rule through popular support. Mandates are conveyed through elections, in which voters choose political parties and candidates based on their own policy preferences. The election results are then interpreted to determine which policies are popularly supported. A majority government provides a clear mandate, while plurality or coalition government suggests a lesser mandate, requiring greater compromise between parties. Parties with strong mandates are free to implement their preferred policies with the understanding that they are supported by the people.
In the 2024 US election, Harris received 48.33% of the popular vote, while Trump received 49.80%. Neither received more than 50% of the votes, so there was no winner-by-majority, only winner-by-plurality. The percentage by which Trump won was 1.5% of the American voters.
This is all basic information—the kind I skipped over when in high school. It garners special significance for me because President Trump, Elon Musk, and other actors in the current administration and Republican congress use mandate as a key word in explaining and justifying their activity. Now that judges, some appointed by Trump, are putting several of his executive orders on pause, the word “mandate” is used to suggest the judges do not understand that the American people have asked for these orders (not that even a majority makes an action constitutional).
It is worth remembering that the MAGA mandate (and there is one) is based on a plurality, that the difference among those who voted for a president in 2024 is 1.5%, and that there are many, many citizens who strongly object to wholesale gutting of government organizations. The electoral college can never be used to gauge how many angry citizens are watching the White House.
As I’ve remarked in the past, I’m a man without a party because each party either omits life-giving values or includes life-defying ones. I’m not looking for perfection, just more than a binary least-of-two-evils option. The term “plurality” is particularly relevant in the parliamentary system where, lacking a majority, the prime minister must form a coalition. This, like ranked voting, gives a greater proportion of the electorate influence in matters of governance.
As I drift away from the topic of “mandate,” I’ll end with a prediction. Assuming this country still operates as the kind of democracy that most of us think of when we think of the duopoly—assuming that, the Democrats face their biggest challenge in 2028 because they have proven unable to produce a timely candidate that can beat someone like Donald Trump or, I assume, JD Vance. In 2023, 43% of voters claimed the Independent label, and this percentage is likely rising. It would take a drastically different Democratic party to win a majority of this group over to their presidential candidate.