Democracy is flawed ! Anything that puts the minorities ahead majorities is a recipe for dysfunction ! We witness this happening now in real time !
It's just that the stupid can't see it !

.

Dear Rhian,

.

Oops, sorry ! That was a typing mistake. I meant to type 1888, not 1988.

Republican Benjamin Harrison defeated Democratic incumbent Grover Cleveland, winning the electoral college vote 233–168 despite losing the popular vote, which Cleveland won with 5,540,309 votes against Harrison’s 5,439,853 votes.

My apologies.

.

Oh-o. It looks like Trump stands a chance of winning the election.

Well the reliably left leaning Economist has to get its ducks in a row to try to show how that wasn't a valid win. If, on the other hand, Kamala gets up, we can be sure the Economist and the rest of the left leaning MSM (is there any other type?) will assure us it was a victory for true democracy.

Pretty much every democracy has a system that allows for the possibility of people winning even though they didn't get a majority of the vote. Australia in 1990. And don't even mention the Senate where some states get votes valued at over 10 times those of others.

Britain likewise has had its examples given that the first-past-the-post system is almost designed to allow victories with less than 50% support. And again, the House of Lords?

What the Economist is really complaining of is that the US might vote for policies it (the Economist) dislikes and that is, to their thinking, definitionally undemocratic.

There is no perfect democracy. Setting up a series of idealistic criteria and denouncing failure to meet those criteria as proof that this or that jurisdiction isn't democratic is flawed thinking.

Athens didn't allow women the vote. Not democratic
Rome had an unelected Senate - Not democratic.
Australia's Senate
Britain's Lords.
The Electoral College.

There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Never will be in the real world.

BTW, strictly speaking the US doesn't claim to be a democracy. Its a Federal Republic where the competing interests of the states are resolved in a peaceful and agreed upon fashion. And in that regards its been an exemplar for the world, including this country.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

Yes, Elbridge Gerry was one of America’s remarkable politicians and certainly left his mark on the political vocabulary.

.

Oh-o. It looks like Trump stands a chance of winning the election.
mhaze,
That'd be a worry for the non-productive. Just like here if Dutton gets elected. What the non-productive don't seem to grasp is that people are getting fed up with working & paying taxes to feed the former.
Parasitism only lasts as long as the contents of the coffers !

Dear Banjo and Mhaze

I must offer my own “oops sorry” too - I should have typed 1998 not 1988.

Mhaze

As an ex-pom I know all too well how the constituency system in the UK can result in the election of governments most people don’t want. The problem is far worse there because of the first-past-the-post system, whereas our preference system does tend to even things out so the least unpopular party usually wins, and also means that minor parties get more reasonable representation.

I agree that every system has its flaws, and there is no perfect democracy.

In the USA, The Economist is currently predicting that Trump is most likely to win even though Harris has more popular support, because Trump is ahead in the swing states that will almost certainly determine the outcome. I don’t think that means The Economist (or Harris) will dispute the result if she loses – unlike Trump, both Harris and The Economist respect the system, or at least realise that not abiding by its results is a very bad idea.