The Controversy of Mandate Theory in Elections: A Critical Analysis by Political Scientists

Why do winning candidates claim a mandate even though political scientists generally discredit the mandate theory of elections?

Winning candidates want to justify their policy proposals by claiming that the public supports them.

Winning candidates often claim a mandate even though political scientists generally discredit the mandate theory of elections because mandates give winners a sense of legitimacy and political capital. When candidates claim a mandate, they are essentially saying that they were elected with a clear and broad mandate from the people. This allows them to justify their policies and proposals and gives them more political power to enact their agenda.

However, political scientists generally discredit the mandate theory of elections because it is difficult to determine whether a candidate truly won because of their platform or simply because they were the lesser of two evils. Mandates are also difficult to measure in terms of their geographical and demographic breakdown. Elections are usually not won by a majority, but by a plurality, which means that the winner may not represent the majority of the electorate. Additionally, even if a candidate were to receive a majority of the vote, it does not necessarily translate into a mandate for their entire platform. Voters may have chosen a candidate for a variety of reasons, including personal charisma, party affiliation, or voter turnout.

In summary, candidates claim a mandate to enhance their political legitimacy and capitalize on their victory, but political scientists generally discredit the mandate theory of elections because it can be difficult to measure and may not represent the entire electorate’s preferences.

More Answers: