Elected not on the basis of foreseen works

"It is of course true that God knows the future, and it is equally true that history unfolds just as God knows it will. Certainly all things happen according to the foreknowledge of God. But, as the Westminster Confession, Chapter III, section ii, so explicitly states, 'Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed any thing because he forsaw it as future.' In very simple language, 'according to' and 'because of'' do not mean the same thing. Consider a railroad schedule. The trains run according to the timetable (or should), but it is not the timetable that determines their progress. The type of engine, the weight of the load, the traffic, the stability of the roadbed, the purpose of the train - all these determine the schedule. Thus the train runs according to the schedule, and if we know the schedule, they run according to our foreknowledge, but not because of it. Similarly with election. The mere fact that God knows ahead of time that a man will trust Christ is not the causal explanation of election. Election does not depend on God's knowledge of the future.
This popular confusion of phrases like 'according to' and 'because of' is also evident in a current interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. Some modern dispensationalist argue that Christians today should not use the Lord's Prayer because it says, 'Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.' Since we are saved by free grace in this age, we ask forgiveness not on the basis of our forgiving others but on the basis of Christ's righteousness. So far so good. But then dispensationalism says that in the millennium people will be saved by works, and will then pray to be forgiven on the basis of their conduct. In opposition to dispensationalism the Bible knows only one way of salvation, the glorious way of the cross. And the Lord's Prayer does not request forgiveness on the basis of our forgiving spirit, but modestly and in a humbling fashion beseeches forgiveness from God in proportion as we forgive others. A little attention to words, to prepositions, would save a person from such absurd and sinful doctrinal error." - Gordon H. Clark, New Heavens, New Earth, Pg. 88 - 89

Those who God foreknew, He predestinated

On Romans 8:28-30 Gordon H. Clark says, "The verse now gives a general explanation of God's design. Whom God foreknew, he predestinated. In the discussion of Isaiah 46:10 it was pointed out that foreknowledge is not a matter of looking into the future and discovering what is there. God knows the future because he has determined it. Furthermore, foreknowledge, in its Biblical usage, refers more to good events than to evil events. This is not to deny God's omniscience nor even his universal control. It refers merely to literary usage. Psalm 1:6 makes the contrast that God knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish. Then, too, there is Amos 3:2, 'you only have I known of all the families of the Earth.' here the verb to know means to choose or to select. Obviously it is not a denial of omniscience.
Therefore, those people whom God foreknew, chose, or selected are precisely the individuals whom he predestinated. The Greek verb can equally well be translated predestinate or predetermine. The direct purpose of this predestination is now mentioned. God chose these people to be conformed to the image of his Son. This was of course for their good but it was also a part of Christ's glory, for it made him the firstborn among many brethren." - Predestination

The proper use of means in Predestination

'Although,' to use the words of Gregory, 'God never swerves from His decree, yet He often varies in His declarations': that is always and immoveable; these are sometimes seemingly discordant. So when He gave sentence against the Ninevites by Jonah, saying, 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,' the meaning of the words is not that God absolutely intended, at the end of that space, to destroy the city, but that, should God deal with those people according to their deserts, they would be totally extirpated from the earth, and should be so extirpated unless they repented speedily.
Likewise, when He told King Hezekiah by the prophet Isaiah, 'Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die and not live,' the meaning was that with respect to second causes, and, considering the king's bad state of health and emaciated constitution, he could not, humanly speaking, live much longer. But still the even showed that God had immutably determined that he should live fifteen years more, and in order to that had put it into his heart to pray for the blessing decreed, just as, in the case of Nineveh, lately mentioned, God had resolved not to overthrow that city then; and, in order to the accomplishment of His own purpose in a way worthy of Himself, made the ministry of Jonah the means of leading that people to repentance. All which, as it shows that God's absolute predestination does not set aside the use of means, so does it likewise prove that, however various the declarations of God may appear (to wit, when they proceed on a regard had to natural causes), His counsels and designs stand firm and immovable, and can neither admit of alteration in themselves, nor of hindrance in their execution. See this farther explained by Bucer in Rom. 9, where you will find the certainty of the Divine appointment solidly asserted and unanswerably vindicated." - Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination

Secondary Causes still upheld

"The influence which the Divine foreknowledge has on the certain futurition of the things foreknown does not render the intervention of second causes needless, nor destroy the nature of the things themselves."- Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination

God's intention is always the question

"In God's holy garden, we must not want to plant trees upside down - with their roots facing the sky and their branches in the soil! To turn things upside down from the very beginning is a perversion of the whole way. Let the cause, the fountainhead, the root, remain in God, and let nothing else ever be seen in us than the resultant effect, the stream that flows from its source, and the branch with its bud and blossom. There is no election, therefore, on the basis of a foreseen faith, but there is faith as the result of an antecedent election.
And if it is now established that Christ was God, and hence as God knew whom he had chosen and who would come to saving faith as a the result of that election, then it is self-evident that our Mediator, who never desired to bring any other atonement than for those who would believe, intended the provision of the atonement solely and exclusively for his own.
That is why, when discussing whether Christ has died for all individuals or for all the elect, we can never employ the distinction between God's will and God's decree, as the Hessian and Bremen delegates advocated it at Dordt, since this distinction exclusively applies when considering our intention, but never may be given validity when there is a discussion of God's intention.
When Joseph was about to be sold by his brothers, it was God's revealed will to Judah and Reuben, 'Do not sell your brother!' Yet it was God's hidden decree that 'Joseph will be sold by his brothers.'
Accordingly, when we are talking about our activity, about what we are doing or what we intend, oh then most definitely, not only may we, but we must continually reckon with this golden maxim of evangelical wisdom: 'Blind as regards the outcome, but fully obedient to the commandment!'
On the contrary, when, as here, we are discussing not what we but what Christ intended, and not what we but what God willed, then everyone senses that it is the height of absurdity to dare to distinguish in God himself between what he wills and, nevertheless, does not will!" - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

The Knowledge of God and His Sovereignty and All-sufficiency

Often the knowledge of God is miscontrued in the form of how a creature thinks. As the creature thinks of something outside of itself onto the action to follow so to God's knowledge is often considered as Him having to rely on something outside of Himself. This is often confused as God's 'foreknowledge' in which the philosopher would say that God looks into the future and therefore knows what will happen and thus decrees the outcome of the event. However with God He simply knows the event, not because He looked into the future and so by that determined the event to occur. This has been coined by James R. White as the passive knowledge of God (or something like that). Reformed Dogmatics however presents the issue the other way around, rather than saying that God is ever contingent upon something outside of Himself - God is in fact all sufficient in His sovereignty, and in His power, and knowledge. He is the eternal active God who is never not active as a dumb idol - this is the related idea of the truth that All of God's works within Himself is the basis for His works outside of Himself. As Herman Hoeksema says, "With man one may distinguish between the part of his knowledge that at a given moment is actually before his consciousness and the other part that remains below the threshold of his conscious mind. But with God there is no such distinction. There is no subconsciousness in him. With respect to his knowledge, he is pure activity. Nor is there nay time element in God's knowledge. Man reasons from premises to a conclusion, but with God all premises and conclusions are eternally before his divine mind in their proper logical relation. Thus the knowledge of God is self-existent and independent. He  does not derive knowledge from the things that are , but instead knows all things in their very essence and all their relations from himself." With this said, His knowledge is has been distinguished between two types one is Natural knowledge which is the knowledge God has with Himself - this is the knowledge that seems to be what Scripture says all of God's works are known to Him, and then there is His free knowledge in which is based on His decree or counsel.

On the Love of God and Reprobation and Election

God does not love every single person on the face of the planet equally. But furthermore I would add that He does not love the Reprobates at all nor should we suggest that He loves them even though He is seemingly kind to them. The purpose in which God enacts His love and kindness towards the elect is not and should not be equated as the same in which He lavishes His goodness upon the Reprobate. For one God's end in lavishing His love and kindness and goodness on the particular elect chosen freely and soveriegnly is that they would be like Christ. And the end to which God continues to do good to the Reprobate is that they would continue to love their sin and thereby be decieved. This is best illustrated as a planter feeds the certian plants that he wants to grow and see come to maturity he feeds, but the other plants that he does not want he does things for the purpose that they would die off.

Not all without exception but all without disctinction

The idea is that Christ death was a death that went out towards different kinds of people not just towards certain kinds. As was the case for the old dispensation where God chose a people for Himself to further out His redemptive purposes. Jesus was born of the Jewish religion not of the Greek system where the belief was pagan. Jesus was a Jew. Salvation was from the jews scripture says. To the Jew first then to the Greek. The Jews were God's chosen people in that the Messiah came from them (Romans 9:1-5). Of course this does not mean that under the old testament dispensation that there were no pagans who were brought from Darkness to Light. However, they had to become Jewish. An offshoot of this is that the Christians in Acts were wondering whether to make Gentile Christians to first become Jews so that they could become Christians. But the conclusion made was no for salvation is by Grace Alone which is the point of the letter to the Galatians.
Of course the wall of seclusion was not knocked down until after Jesus accomplished his mission. The seclusion was that only the Jews were God's people and anyone outside of Jewish community were considered filthy.
The statement made in John 3:16 was astounding for the purpose - John writes was to show that God qualitative love was not just toward the Jewish audience but extended out toward the rest of the world of the gentile. So when scripture makes reference that Christ died for all people it should really be read as all kinds of people. The atonement was in fact particular in intent in that God purposed that Christ should die for the salvation of His elect those whom He had Chose since before the foundation of the world who were spread abroad throughout the world.
The good news is that now the gospel is for all kinds of people. it is not just for the wealthy or the poor people but all people are to repent of sin and trust in Christ for righteousness sake. 1 Timothy 2 speaks of this truth. So today where one might be born in a Christian home the temptation might be that because He is of the Christian family he is saved. This is not true at all. Scripture says for all have sin and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore all must find there refuge in Adam number two. The idea is that as we preach the gospel to all people only those whom the Father has chosen to come to faith in His Son Jesus Christ will come by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit who works so graciously and free (Ephesian 3:14-19).
Now this by no means says that Christ died for all men without exception that all men everywhere universally have been bought with a price by the blood of Christ for certianly He died for only His elect people whom God chose most freely in eternity past. Only God's elect will come to faith at the hearing of the gospel at the particular point that God decreed. The reprobate will be hardened by God's good providence.

A good book to read on this subject is Abraham Kuyper's Particular Grace

Whether God electing certian humans to be created and to be fallen would be considered to be unfair?

No. It would mean that God chose certian people out of a lump of unfallenness. The choice had nothing to do with whether or not these people were good or bad. It was on the pleasure of God. Keep in mind that election and reprobation are not... actions of condemnation. So although God chose to work in one group above another, he did so on the basis that these particular groups were not good or bad (They were in a sense neutral). It is there fallen state which is the reason for their condemnation. Because all men are sinners (bother elect and reprobate) none deserve to be saved. In the infra camp, they cannot seperate reprobation from condemnation.
So the real question when it comes down to it is not why not save more people, but why does he save?

Scripture verses: Romans 9:13; 17-23

And it is because God is the potter and humans are the clay in which we can not talk back to God. No one can say to God what have you done. Because God has full rights over the clay pots. Daniel 4:35 - What have you done?

God's election is caused and is not seperated from His foreknowledge

Although God's foreknowledge and Election of individuals are different. That is God's foreknowledge being His everlasting love toward the individual and God's election being the choice to save the individual.

God's foreknowledge and electing actions really are not seperate. To some degree they go together. It is not that God's election means that the individual does not have free will. It is that the individual really with his free-will, in the fallen state that he is in, cannot freely choose God. He is a sinner, dead in his trespasses and sins. God's election for one to be saved means that God is going to work in that individual so that the individual will repent and turn to Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit alone. With the others (Reprobate) God simply leaves them in their sins, freelly to choose what they want which is sin.

He does not have to deal with the reprobate (that is prevent them from repenting and turning to Christ in faith). God's election should not be seen as something tyranical, but something good. For the elect owes his faith to being the elect, but his election to his faith.