Majority Rules

Ann Althouse has comments on the Trump ballot disqualification, and her general opinion that the people should be allowed to choose who governs them.  She applies it to things like term limits, which seems appropriate.

I should not have been surprised at how many of the opposing comments immediately (but subtly) changed the topic to the Electoral College, railing against the minority candidates who attained the presidency, and wasn't that denying "the people" their right to elect who they pleased?

In a collection of various states, "the people" can have more than one definition.  I see the point of theirs, because it has a nice simplicity and makes some sense. Yet they do not see (or pretend not to see) that there are other possibilities, some sensible, some insane. There are downsides and unfairness in any method, we try to reduce that as best we can.

I have used the analogy of the World Series, or really, of any sports league, at least once here and more often in comments elsewhere.  We do not award the championship to the team who scored the most runs over seven games, nor the best total score over the course of a season.  We don't do that in any sport, though sometimes in tournaments like the World Cup the goal differential might make some difference in tie situations. We award the championship to the team that wins the most games, and we do consider that letting "the players" determine the outcome.

If you don't like the idea of taking our election analogies from competitive sports, what do you like better - romance and reproduction, battle technology, market sales, bullying and counter-bullying, friendship? All of those are letting "the people" decide, but each is different.