[asuidyasiud]

If a group of people comes together, discusses, and comes by some process to a unanimous decision ("consensus") then it does usually make a lot of sense to regard the outcome as the "will of these people".

The point I am trying to make through the last n posts is that Arrow's theorem does concerns the impossibility of a certain, narrow-minded formalization. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that 'the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem', which is what you had claimed.

I have nothing to say about the people and churches of England.

[yummyfajitas]

Your claim is that if a unanimous decision has been arrived at, it constitutes the will of the people. No one disputes this - the case where everyone agrees is trivial and uninteresting. It also does not describe the situation with Uber in Portland, Delhi, or anywhere else. I want Uber in Delhi, some politicians don't. Hence there is no consensus.

You either have a coherent definition of "will of the people" that goes beyond consensus, or you don't. If you do, give the definition.

[fugigig]

For the moment I am content having pointed out the flaw in your argument.