THE CASE FOR COLLUSION ( Archived) (70)

Democracy has, in the vast majority of countries that practice it, never been about guaranteeing that the candidate with the highest vote will necessarily win.

Here in New Zealand, the 1978 and 1981 general elections were won by a party that polled less votes than the opposition party, but won more seats. The last election we had here too, in 2017, also delivered a result that cut out the largest party, and saw a government formed by a party that was 10 percentage points behind the largest party in the popular vote.

In the UK, similar scenarios have played out in the past.

And in countries with proportional representation systems, governments are often formed by parties that only 30% of people actually voted for.

An election between two individual candidates, with the higher of the two guaranteed by the system to win, is very much the exception in democratic systems.

Sorry but it's not.

If the architects of the U.S.A.'s political system had wished to create a system in which the higher polling candidate necessarily won, they would have done so. But they didn't.

And you need a dictionary sunshine! Look up "relevant!"!

I am not wrong. And your post is irrelevant.

Trump won the election, on the same basis and rules that every other winning candidate has won. The Establishment (whom you seem to admire so much) are unwilling to accept the result, despite the fact that they created the rules under which he won.

As an aside, I am sure you would be singing a different tune had the Clinton Crime Syndicate won, with less votes than Trump.

Frankly, countries shouldn't be invading other countries, whether to impose democracy or not.