>You don't think it's theoretically or pragmatically true that elected leaders are constrained/guided/informed by the feedback generated by elections?

A "mandate" isn't what you just described above. It's always true that those who weasel their way into office have been influenced by someone or someones, but to call that a "mandate" when it amounts to some tiny non-majority fraction of the (even voting age) population is bizarre. Is this some meme joke that I'm just clueless about, because it's difficult to take you seriously.

>not sure what warranted that hysterical response.

An even hand typed the words with a calm heart, and no other emotion other than exasperation. Your takes are pretty far from reality.

In your model, is a simple majority a necessary feature of a mandate?

And what’s the scope of the majority? A simple majority on each individual decision?