Everyone claims they received a decisive mandate, because a mandate is in the minds of people. If they think you have a mandate, then you do. So after every election, the winner claims to have a mandate, because they keep hoping that everyone else will act like they do, and therefore that they will.

Objectively, of course, you're right.

Some politicians actually talk about what they're going to do in some detail before election and then have some validity in claiming a mandate for those things after winning.

Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate.

I just learned from Duolingo that the French word for "term of office" is "mandat".

I started a whole unit on words about elections about two weeks ago. It was a pretty damn upsetting two weeks. I really wish Duo gave me the ability to skip a section and come back to it later.

Why is this "co-chair" thing such a gotcha? How is this different from having two founders?

Well, it's having two people where one would do. On a committee that is about efficiency and removing waste.

Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results.

When has two co-equal bosses ever made things more efficient?

If you had two people as SecDef Musk would use that as a perfect example of inefficiency.

> How is this different from having two founders?

One typically functions as CEO.

As far as I can tell this group won't have any actual power, so why not?