I believe the constitution doesn't contain the word democracy lol

So imagine if 51% of Americans lived in California and the other 49% lived in the rest of the country. Would it be fair for California to always pick the candidate, just because they have the most people?

That’s why they have the electoral college.

but state wise people don't get represented

i guess it's good

i mean

idk

so how much power does the president have?

> It is a system which prevents mob rule. That is why they have an electoral vote and a popular vote. If 51% of the people vote for someone, the 49% can still win. It protects the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority, that you would otherwise have to deal with in an absolute democracy.
@𝓓. 𝓢. but using the electoral vote couldn't they still have the majority of the states opress the minotrity?

Good question, actually. It’s certainly better than absolute democracy, but that’s a good topic for discussion.

I believe that the majority of the people of course need to have a say, but it also prevents them from ruling over the minority, so I believe it’s a good balance. It gives neither the majority nor the minority absolute power.

can the president do anything they want?

No

There is another type of voting called ranked voting

how much is ruled by him then

He’s the executive branch and either rejects or approves of laws.

But not too sure if it can work en mass

that's all he does?

Basically

Cali and a couple other states can still have mob rule

well wouldn't it be better if there were educated people who studied subjects and were the best at them and decides what goes through and what doesn't?

But who decides who is educated enough?

The people in power

by like idk being that best at that field

That wouldn’t work because of partisan interests.

it just seems weird that people who know nothing can decide on government policy no?

They will claim that their candidate is the most suited for the job. So just let the people vote who their president should be.

but like surely there is a yes and no answer to everything

that is backed up with reasoning instead of personal interests you know?

The people know what they want, so they choose the person who promises to do what they want.

but people are selfish and only vote for what they think is best for them but without really knowing truly why

that seems flawed

So the people shouldn’t have a say in who is gonna represent them?

i think the people should identify problems but not be the ones to solve them

I don’t get the point you’re making.

my point is there are conservatives vs liberals but surely instead of people being so divided there is a correct answer and reason why

But who decides what the correct answer is?

the people who have studied how to solve these problems i feel like

And who decides who is the most educated? The people in power. Back to my original point.

It wouldn’t work.

people who are best in their field and identified without corruption