I think there are a few fundamental misunderstandings here.
Firstly, it's not 51% of the voting populace that flip-flop. It's actually more like 2-3% "swinging voters" on average - maybe 5% tops. The rest are rusted on to their "team" for decades. The implication is that those on the "losing" side, do indeed consent to be governed by the other team. What's changed in recent decades is that the delta between the two teams has grown - largely on non-economic grounds (imo) - to the extent that people cannot stomach the thought of the other team being in charge. This is exacerbated by the fact that in countries without compulsory voting, participation is far less than 100%. There is greater advantage to be had driving policies away from the largely "centrist" mass possible voters, towards those on the edges who are more motivated to get out there and vote. In countries with compulsory voting, moving radically away from the centre gets punished such that the parties likely to win government are more alike than different. This means that social and economic change is likely to take longer, and when big social shifts happen, they eventually spread to "both" teams (clearly with some temporal difference).
Practically, "51% democracy" had a lot of advantages. The incumbent always has a credible threat of being booted out, and any given minority group could effectively hold the balance of power, so more compromise is needed. A "70% democracy" could easily become a tyranny of the majority (see Canada) where a big portion of views can be completely ignored. And 100% democracy would be a cult, or in practice, equivalent to some kind of benevolent authoritarian system, that may work great for a small, rich city state, but does not support people with a wide range of views and priorities coming together (obviously, by definition)
A 100% democracy doesn't require everyone agree. It just requires that the losers of elections submit to the winners, i.e. refrain from violence. Also a 100% democracy does not require a total lack of minority rights. You can have both.
If you view the US as an Oligarchy that "pay" to win elections, the constant 51% victories make more sense. With the extreme expense of elections, you pay enough to win. You don't bother paying for 75% victory.
You "pay" with both outright money in campaign finance, and in compromise of entrenched advantage (aka policy).
You trot out a platform that will get you the 51% majority with an acceptable cost in campaign finance and minimum surrendered advantage.
If you lose, you won't lose bad enough that you'll slide back too much. If you win, you push your advantage when you win the coinflip.
Sidenote: in the twitter thread there was a reference to the fosbury flop.
Note that the Fosbury has the advantage of clearing the bar, but the jumper's center of gravity goes under the bar, thus you clear the bar, but your effort is less than what people think it is.
Using the American Civil War as an example of a 51% majority is a bit fucked up.
The anti-slavery side had way more than 51% support, but the most heavily anti-slavery demographic (slaves themselves) was excluded from political power. Even in the Confederacy itself, there was probably only a slight pro-slavery majority if you counted people rather than eligible voters.
8 comments
[ 7.1 ms ] story [ 51.2 ms ] threadYou "pay" with both outright money in campaign finance, and in compromise of entrenched advantage (aka policy).
You trot out a platform that will get you the 51% majority with an acceptable cost in campaign finance and minimum surrendered advantage.
If you lose, you won't lose bad enough that you'll slide back too much. If you win, you push your advantage when you win the coinflip.
Sidenote: in the twitter thread there was a reference to the fosbury flop.
Note that the Fosbury has the advantage of clearing the bar, but the jumper's center of gravity goes under the bar, thus you clear the bar, but your effort is less than what people think it is.
The anti-slavery side had way more than 51% support, but the most heavily anti-slavery demographic (slaves themselves) was excluded from political power. Even in the Confederacy itself, there was probably only a slight pro-slavery majority if you counted people rather than eligible voters.