2 ms·

I can objectively say that I take issue with the statement “The winner of the presidential election is not the person who received the most votes from citizens

I can objectively say that I take issue with the statement “The winner of the presidential election is not the person who received the most votes from citizens” Regardless of the party of the winner. > It's like when people complain Congress is deadlocked. Yeah, that's the point, if enough members of Congress can't agree, the it should be deadlocked. This is a meaningless statement when you consider there is only one president. The person cannot disagree with themself. The executive branch does not have to debate and compromise with itself.

refurb 4y ago
I mean, the Prime Minister of Canada is not the person who receives the most votes. They are the leader of the party who gets the most seats (not the most votes as the last election shows). If the Prime Minister loses in their riding (constituency), they'll actually run them again in another one that guarantees they'll win. So in Canada (and Parliamentary system in general), the voters have even less say in who their executive leader is. The is nothing inherently anti-democratic about not electing via popular vote. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed a system different from "the most votes wins the Presidency". They were trying to avoid the exact scenario that would happen today with popular voting - 3 or 4 states would decide the Presidency alone. Not much point in having United States of America if most of the states had no say in their leadership.