If you have a country with 10 million people in it and 3 million live on the east part with 4 million on the west and 3 million spread out?
through provinces in the middle, would it be fair for the 7 million who live in the provinces on the two sides of it to basically control every election or should there be a system in place where everyone gets an equal chance? For example if 3.5 of the 4 million on the west and and 2 of the 3 million on the east voted for a certain person they would control the election making the .5 million on the west and the 1 million on the east along with the 3 million in the middle pretty much never having their votes matter.
- Tmess2Lv 71 month ago
The 7 million who live on the two sides do not control every election, and that's the flaw in the question. The election is controlled by 5.1 million votes and that 5.1 million can come from any of the three parts of the country.
If one party adopts a platform that is hostile to two-thirds of the country, they should lose. But if a party puts together a platform that appeals to all parts of the country, they can get enough votes in the east and west that the voters in the middle can control who wins the election.
- Obi Wan KnievelLv 71 month ago
In other words, why can't elections be rigged so the losers end up winning. Doesn't work that way. A fair election means every vote does count, not just the votes you agree with.
The major problem with democratic elections is the one you're bringing up: Someone has to lose.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Anybody can lead us. Black or white or Asian.
- I love welfareLv 51 month ago
Australia's election system would have voted for Hilary Clinton. That's horrible.