Why We Should Never Take Political Mandates Seriously

Now that the presidential election is over, some supporters of Donald Trump are claiming that the voters have given him a mandate to make big changes in our government. While political enthusiasts of both parties typically talk this way when their candidate has won, the public needs to understand that there is no such thing as a mandate.

This is not a partisan opinion. I have been pointing this out for decades, responding to mandates claimed both by Republicans and Democrats.

And it is not just my opinion. There are weighty reasons why mandate claims cannot be taken seriously.

In 2017, a Justice Department spokesman claimed that the election of Donald Trump was a mandate "to restore legality to the Southwest border." The spokesman probably spoke sincerely, but ignored the fact that Hilary Clinton had gotten several million more popular votes than Trump, even though he won the Electoral College.

In 2024, Trump won a majority of the popular votes, too.

But even when a candidate receives a popular majority, to argue that this means that a majority of the voters wants that official to do any particular thing is not just humbug. It is incompatible with everything that we know about why people vote they way they do.

Candidates always promise to do more than one thing, and these things are often mutually incompatible. Of course it is attractive when a candidate pledges to reduce taxes, increase spending for favored programs, protect other programs, and reduce the annual deficit, even though doing all of these at the same time is impossible.

Some voters may support the candidate because he or she supports one policy. Others may vote for that candidate in spite of that fact or perhaps on the basis of completely different policy stances.

The fact that the candidate wins a majority of the votes, therefore, does not prove that voters have given a mandate to do any particular thing.

And not all votes are based on candidates' stands on issues. Some people support a candidate because they (and probably their ancestors before them) have always voted for a particular political party.

Some people support a candidate because they think he or she has more of the temperament that good political leadership requires. Some people vote for or against a candidate because of that candidate's race or gender.

Some people vote for a candidate because the candidate has kissed their baby. Some vote for a candidate because they consider the other main candidate worse.

In other words, it is impossible to ascertain from the fact that someone has won an election that the voting public supports any particular policies. Public opinion polls directly asking people what they think about possible policies are a more reliable way to figure out what people want.

But even polls have limited utility. Decades ago, voters in a Michigan country had two questions in a referendum, which is more like a poll than like election of a candidate.

Did they favor establishing a community college for that area? A majority voted yes.

But did they support increasing local property taxes enough to pay for a community college. You guessed it, on this question a majority voted no.

Apparently, the majority didn't want a community college badly enough to pay for it, which is to say they really didn't want it.

When any politician — Democrat or Republican — claims a mandate to do something, our response should be to tell that official to get serious. Let them tell us why it would be a good idea rather than trying to stamp it with a good housekeeping seal of public approval.

Mandate claims are a rhetorical device trying to marshal support and head off critical evaluation of a proposal. We should never take such claims seriously.

Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. Read Professor Paul F. deLespinasse's Reports — More Here.