This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/

First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/ https://t.co/l9fmh45Sot
I think this was also said on the Slate political gabfest last week - if you care more, you are in a weaker position. This would seem to be the situation, regardless of election victory. 6/
Finally, control of both chambers is very narrow and in play in nearly every election. Republicans do not have an incentive to give Democrats a win? https://t.co/vNS1LiVKEx 7/
IMO this is why this is such a challenging problem. It has multiple dimensions and there are *multiple reasons* why Republicans have an incentive to act this way and Dems have at least some incentives to play along. 8/
Thinking this way is not as much fun as talking about how much Dem leaders suck - and to be clear, all leaders should be held to account - but we have to think about why interlocking incentives have created a situation in which the winner of elections can only sorta govern. fin.

More from Politics

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party