'@lbisno1'
There are two things that are important. Laws and Ethic.
As st. Augustine famouesly said: Lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law)
I assumed that ye (American leftist) used "the popular vote" in order to question the ethical aspect of Trumps win, that he did not deserve to win, because the law that determines the winner, is not in correspondence with Morality, of who ought to be the winner.
The popular vote is rendered meaningless from an ethical point of view, when it only refers to the candidate that won the biggest plurality and not the one that won an actual majority, as there is no good ethical argument for why the candidate with the most votes should win, regardless of how many voted against him.
In France Macron won the popular vote with 24% as I said. That also means that 76% voted against him, should he on that foundation alone be allowed to take the presidency?
That is why I said that the popular vote is meaningless, when it can’t even be used to make an ethical argument.
0
'@lbisno1'
There are two things that are important. Laws and Ethic.
As st. Augustine famouesly said: Lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is not a law)
I assumed that ye (American leftist) used "the popular vote" in order to question the ethical aspect of Trumps win, that he did not deserve to win, because the law that determines the winner, is not in correspondence with Morality, of who ought to be the winner.
The popular vote is rendered meaningless from an ethical point of view, when it only refers to the candidate that won the biggest plurality and not the one that won an actual majority, as there is no good ethical argument for why the candidate with the most votes should win, regardless of how many voted against him.
In France Macron won the popular vote with 24% as I said. That also means that 76% voted against him, should he on that foundation alone be allowed to take the presidency?
That is why I said that the popular vote is meaningless, when it can’t even be used to make an ethical argument.