Dog Whistles and Democratic Mandates |
| |
Authors: | ROBERT E. GOODIN MICHAEL SAWARD |
| |
Affiliation: | Distinguished Professor of Social and Political Theory and Philosophy in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, Canberra;. Professor of Politics at the Open University and Visiting Fellow in Social and Political Theory at the Australian National University (2005). |
| |
Abstract: | Manipulative mixed messages from candidates to voters affect what governments are entitled to do in office. A party that wins an election gains a 'mandate to rule'. But there is a second type of mandate: a 'policy mandate' to enact specific policy proposals central to the winning party's campaign. Mixed-message politics in general can undermine policy mandates, and the use of 'dog whistle politics' - telling one group of voters one thing, while allowing or encouraging another group to believe another - makes the inferring of policy mandates especially problematic. Referendums provide only a partial remedy to dog whistle politics. Winning a clear policy mandate means forgoing dog whistle politics, despite the short term electoral advantage they may deliver. |
| |
Keywords: | democracy voting elections mandates campaigns referendums |
|