azuth

I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.

While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.

At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can’t really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.

It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it’s much more difficult. Also it’s an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.

I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France’s presidential elections.

The only democracy I’m aware of where you can win with less votes than your opponent…

American exceptionalism at it’s finest.

They absolutely are and Christians were much worse towards women before social progress forced them to change their official positions or become irrelevant.

It is now apparent that they never really changed their ideas.