I don't think that having an electoral mandate is perfect, but it for the most part is how democracy works, which is the best government for self-determination. I think that if you have a majority ruling controlling policies and laws, that it will be the best for self-determination. You need checks and balances though.
Self-determination through an electoral mandate is not possible, because of the variables that exist within voting systems. Self-determination can only truly happen in a world with no rules, and in a world with no rules, there would be absolute chaos and anarchy--this is what our past was, and it was dangerous.
I do not believe that building an electoral mandate will cause a collective self-determination among the people. I believe that such a thing is not remotely possible because it is based on the idea that more than one person can agree to be determined to a common goal. People are not robots.
I believe self-determination is not fair if done through and electoral mandate since the latter is more off of distribution of population than of individuals. For instance smaller states are not represented as well through an electoral mandate. Self determination should have equal representation for all people than an electoral mandate cannot provide.
I do not believe collective self-determination can be realized through the building of an electoral mandate. I believe seeing this as a possibility is a sign that a person is out of touch with reality. I think this assumes that there are connections where there truly are none. It seems unreasonable to me.