(September 17, 2024 at 1:44 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(September 17, 2024 at 1:39 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: The whole point is that he did lose them by getting less votes but was handed power by some shady group. Person who get less votes in presidential elections isn't usually called winner unless something deeply undemocratic happens.
The 'shady group' being large states with low populations? Maybe we're using different definitions of 'shady'? Mine is 'something of doubtful honesty or legality'. It's a bad way to run a national election, but that doesn't make it dishonest or illegal.
The shady group being the founding fathers, who didnt have a clue in the first place, when they tried to implement "kind of" democracy, and then added the very mechanism to circumvent the will of a majority for....reasons.
Same with the founders of Weimar, who tried to implement "kinda" democracy, while still trying to keep the position of a "strong man" (Reichspräsident) for....reasons.
In both cases they thought they were smarter than the people/electorate for whom they wrote the constitution. In both cases it worked, until it didnt for one.....and we are still waiting to see the result for the latter.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse