Not saying it's not democratic, like you said, it was chosen to do so. And it stems from the US being multiple states. I'm just saying that their democracy doesn't represent the majority of the voters. And this, imho, is contradictory to why you'd want a democracy.
It's the same here as in Spain I guess. Multiple parties, the biggest party can lead the negotiations first, if it fails, the King appoints somebody else etc. But in the end, a coalition has to be formed, representing the majority of the voters.
That's where it seems kinda weird to me in the US system.
The indirect system of choosing a new president is certainly interesting but there is a method behind the apparent madness. The United States is in fact made up of states, not just a big mob of us humans milling around in a single amorphous blob. One of the intentions in the creation of the electoral system was to combine a popular vote (population based) with a state based selection (meaning every state gets to vote for who gets elected). What we end up with is this combination where each state gets one choice but states with more people get more weight. It makes a sort of sense when you realize that what is best for the country is not always what's best for a single state, even if that state has a massive population. In an extreme case we could end up with one or two giant states that pick the president every single time. Heck I live in Texas and even I wouldn't want us to pick every single president and force everyone else in the country to deal with it.That's the problem...it's not what "we" (the majority of America) wanted. He didn't win the popular vote and that demonstrates how incredibly frustrating our voting system is. It's insane that a candidate can lose the popular vote by 700,000 votes yet still win the electoral college by a very healthy margin.
Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App