What Defines an Electoral Mandate

In response to questions about shutting down government departments, Senator Grassley admitted he did not know if Trump had the authority, but did not seem bothered by his actions, instead saying that the 2024 election was a “clear mandate to drain the swamp in D.C.”.

So, what defines an electoral mandate? There is no formal definition but, in the past, we have typically considered a mandate to require several key pieces: a resounding victory with a significant margin between the two candidates, a voter turnout that was larger than normal, and a clear policy objective that drove the enthusiasm and victory for the elected candidate.

The 2024 election ended up with a margin of 49.8% for Trump to 48.3% for Kamala Harris – a margin of victory of 1.5 percentage points. Since 1972, only two Presidents have won the presidency with a smaller margin of victory, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016, both of whom lost the popular vote.

The 2024 election ended up with a total voter turnout of 155 million, which constituted approximately 63.4% of the voting eligible population. While the total voter turnout has been going up over time, this actually is a relative increase in the voter turnout since the data was tracked starting in 1980, however, it is a lower turnout in terms of the eligible population in 2020 and a lower overall turnout compared with 2020 which saw 158 million voters and 65.3% of the eligible population cast a ballot. This means that Joe Biden had a higher turnout in 2020 compared with Donald Trump in 2024, and a much higher margin of victory at 4.5 percentage points.

I don’t know what formally defines an electoral mandate. But if the 2024 election constitutes an electoral mandate for President Trump, we must also consider that Joe Biden won an electoral mandate with his victory in 2020. Furthermore, we would also expect that we must consider Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 constituted an electoral mandate in that election, specifically with the clear policy objective and key platform of passing Health Care Legislation during his term.

Naturally then, we would trust that Senator Grassley supported the mandated legislation in 2009; however, he strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), voting against it. He even said if every single amendment he proposed had passed he still would have voted against it. Moreover, we would expect that Senator Grassley worked closely together with Joe Biden after his victory and electoral mandate in 2020; however, he staunchly opposed almost every action of his administration and toed the Republican line during his four years in office.

𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐈 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞. I did not care about a mandate in 2008, in 2020, or today. What I do care about is the mechanisms being used to achieve political objectives. When Barack Obama won in 2008 he did not push through executive actions to enforce his mandate; he pushed Congress to do their job. He pushed Congress to write a bill, debate it, pass it and put it on his desk. With a mandate in hand, Congress came together to do just that and passed the Affordable Care Act which Senator Grassley had the opportunity to discuss, debate, and amend.

𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫. What I do know is using this line is merely an excuse. Senator Grassley has an undeniable constitutional duty to ensure the means President Trump uses to “drain the swamp” adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.