Practically, "51% democracy" had a lot of advantages. The incumbent always has a credible threat of being booted out, and any given minority group could effecti

Practically, "51% democracy" had a lot of advantages. The incumbent always has a credible threat of being booted out, and any given minority group could effectively hold the balance of power, so more compromise is needed. A "70% democracy" could easily become a tyranny of the majority (see Canada) where a big portion of views can be completely ignored. And 100% democracy would be a cult, or in practice, equivalent to some kind of benevolent authoritarian system, that may work great for a small, rich city state, but does not support people with a wide range of views and priorities coming together (obviously, by definition)