Yes, that alone has nothing to do with whether the election was fair or not.
Was there fraud with the votes? Was people denied voting? Those are some of the things that would make an election not fair.
Looking from the outside on US politics it seemed you guys had a wannabe dictator and narcicist run for president. He told you exactly how bonkers he is and what he plans to do. And you guys voted him in twice…
People are systematically, deliberately denied votes in every American election. Their entire voting system was a compromise with slave states. American elections are bad by design.
And yes, let’s also highlight the fact that a violent insurrectionist was allowed to run for office. Putting it mildly, that is not a sign of a healthy normal election.
If you’re going to hate Americans be my guest, but hate them for tolerating the existing system at all. It’s a structurally unjust society from the ground up and they’re ridiculous for tolerating it.
To help put things into perspective for you, Trump didn’t even get a majority of the vote. Normal countries have runoff elections if no one reaches a majority, but not the US!
And of course he’s only a politician today because when he ran in the 2016 race he was appointed President by the electoral college despite not even getting a plurality of the vote that time. He’s actually never gotten 50%+ of voters to vote for him.
The system is structured this way so that the slave-ocracy could elect presidents.
He got a plurality. He didn’t actually win more than 50% of the vote, and that’s only speaking of voters. If you count everyone he got something like 22% of citizens.
The point being made is that in a healthy democracy, voting is either very high turnout or mandatory, as in some countries. It’s also worth pointing out that getting 20% of all possible voters is an extremely weak mandate, and one of the norms we’ve been relying on is the idea that you don’t have the right to fundamentally reshape the country according to your preferences.
Is a fair election when a violent insurrectionist, a literal traitor to the republic, is allowed to run for office?
We zigged when we should have zagged a long time ago.
The American system is broken by design
No, it’s been broken; the original design wasn’t bad, but they told us not to let a two party system happen and we did it anyway.
The original does not protect against an entire party determined to undermine it, imo
isnt that what the “overthrow the government” part is for?
Not like we could actually do that anyways 🙃
Yes it does, it has quite clear instructions in fact. People just aren’t willing to do what’s necessary to follow those instructions… Yet.
We definitely should have several large books at him… but also 75 million people shouldn’t have voted for him.
Yes, that alone has nothing to do with whether the election was fair or not.
Was there fraud with the votes? Was people denied voting? Those are some of the things that would make an election not fair.
Looking from the outside on US politics it seemed you guys had a wannabe dictator and narcicist run for president. He told you exactly how bonkers he is and what he plans to do. And you guys voted him in twice…
It’s hard to feel sympathy for Americans.
People are systematically, deliberately denied votes in every American election. Their entire voting system was a compromise with slave states. American elections are bad by design.
And yes, let’s also highlight the fact that a violent insurrectionist was allowed to run for office. Putting it mildly, that is not a sign of a healthy normal election.
If you’re going to hate Americans be my guest, but hate them for tolerating the existing system at all. It’s a structurally unjust society from the ground up and they’re ridiculous for tolerating it.
I don’t hate Americans at all. What would give you that idea?
Its hard sympathising when Americans have willingly and knowingly put themselves in this position but that doesn’t mean I hate them.
I root for you guys and hope you get your shit together,for the sake of everyone on earth.
To help put things into perspective for you, Trump didn’t even get a majority of the vote. Normal countries have runoff elections if no one reaches a majority, but not the US!
And of course he’s only a politician today because when he ran in the 2016 race he was appointed President by the electoral college despite not even getting a plurality of the vote that time. He’s actually never gotten 50%+ of voters to vote for him.
The system is structured this way so that the slave-ocracy could elect presidents.
Didn’t he win the popular vote this last go around?
When talking about elections, only the people who actually voted are of interest
It’s obvious a candidate is not getting 50% of voters to vote for him if generally only 60% of the population votes…
He got a plurality. He didn’t actually win more than 50% of the vote, and that’s only speaking of voters. If you count everyone he got something like 22% of citizens.
But why would I count everyone? In an election you can’t the people that voted, since those are the votes you can possibly get…
I thought winning the popular vote was getting the majority of the votes that was cast. Is that incorrect?
The point being made is that in a healthy democracy, voting is either very high turnout or mandatory, as in some countries. It’s also worth pointing out that getting 20% of all possible voters is an extremely weak mandate, and one of the norms we’ve been relying on is the idea that you don’t have the right to fundamentally reshape the country according to your preferences.
That’s why I’m not counting everyone, just the people that voted.
Winning the popular vote just means winning a plurality of the votes. He got more votes than Harris. Once you account for all the other candidates, though, his total comes out to less than 50% of all the people that voted. No one got a majority.
And in many countries if no one gets a majority there is a runoff. This is another structural problem that the US has.