The normative conclusion is that even if an election is won with 50% plus a minority (or majority) of voters, the winner is justified in imposing policies that seriously harm the remaining 49% (or less). It doesn’t mean anything.
In a free society, there are three main justifications for political majority rule. First, if the ruler’s exercise of power is rejected by a large portion of the population, it becomes possible to change the ruler, that is, to oust the villain. Second, it represents something close to unanimity and is ultimately the only normative justification for democracy. (See William Riker’s article on each. liberalism and populism and my review of the book regulation; and James Buchanan and Gordon Tulloch, calculation of consent similarly My Econlib review(.) Third, as Buchanan and Tulloch argued, near-unanimity is only necessary to prevent resistance forces from maliciously blocking widely desired change.
One implication of this approach is that the president is elected with 50.1% of the popular vote (as tallied for the November 5 election). As of November 14th) He doesn’t even get a license to kill people or do all the things he promised. Believing Americans can hypothetically undermines credibility. social contract Ara buchananunanimously agrees to constitutional rules that confer such powers on the president and, by extension, the elected Congress. As Milton Friedman wrote about majoritarian democracy, “Those who believe in freedom have never counted their noses” (see chapter 1 of his classic). capitalism and freedom). The president is not an elected king or dictator.
Credible arguments along these lines do not require a president or elected Congress to make any decisions that are important to someone in their lifestyle or in the net benefits derived from living in the relevant society or under its government. There is no authority to cause any harm. This “significantly” covers an area of disagreement, from classical liberalism to various shades of minimalist state and anarcho-capitalism.
If the above is close to the truth, then politicians and experts who believe in the omnipotence of the numerical majority are wrong. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson declared:Republican euphoria dashed by tough House math,” wall street journalNovember 12, 2024 (from the previous two versions):
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said at a news conference Tuesday that Republicans are “ready to fulfill America’s mission in the next Congress.”
He said Republican control of Washington could “bring about the most consequential Congress in modern times” and that lawmakers “need to start acting on behalf of the people from day one.”
This idea seems to be pervasive in political circles. Caroline Leavitt, Trump-Vance transition spokeswoman, said:Trump’s draft executive order would create a commission to purge generals,” wall street journalNovember 12, 2024):
The American people re-elected President Trump by a wide margin and gave him a mandate to carry out the promises he made during the campaign. He will deliver.
A former administration official and ally of the president-elect spoke of a “landslide mission” (“President Trump sends shockwaves through Washington with Gates Pick,” wall street journalNovember 14, 2024).
50 percent plus a few dozen percent (50.3 percent as counted a few days ago) doesn’t seem like a “landslide” or a “significant difference,” and even if there was a significant difference, elected officials would Permission is not granted. To abide by any promise or whim. The president-elect’s 58% of the Electoral College (312 of 538 electors) partly reflects the ideals of federalism and America’s founding suspicions about numerical democracy. pure white medical record Either. No rational person would give 58% of the electorate unlimited power over him. I speak not as a constitutional lawyer, not really, but from a constitutional political economy perspective (see Jeffrey Brennan and James Buchanan) The Reason for Rules: The Political Economy of the Constitutionsimilarly My Econlib review). Friedrich Hayek would no doubt agree with these general conclusions (see his article) law, legislation, and freedomand My Econlib review of Volume 3 of this book).
Seen from this perspective, the mandate for the president and Congress is less grand. It’s not from “America” or “the people,” it’s from the majority of voters. Half of the electorate is made up of people who strongly disagree with the views of the other side. Moreover, one-third do not vote, so these one-half of the electorate become two-thirds of the electorate. Please also note that “offering” does not imply a market meaning. In politics, it primarily means achieving favorable interventions for some people at the expense of others, and negative interventions for the latter. A classic example is when tariffs favor the shareholders, managers, and employees of some companies, but disadvantage all consumers who pay higher prices.
Deciding which third of the electorate (or half of the electorate) will impose their wishes and lifestyle on the other two-thirds is not the only option. Another option is to allow all individuals to live as they wish, except for some specially justified restrictions. Equal individual freedom is economically and morally superior to collective choice, or collectivism on the left or right. There is no moral or economic equivalence between freeing individuals and dominating one person over another. At least, this is what the liberal tradition claims in one form or another.
