Why is electoral system better?

I need this for an essay, guys. Why is this better than population vote?

because 99% of the time the population is stupid

It better represents a broad set of viewpoints held by Americans across the country

Is this the United States of America or the United States of California?

so that cities in New York California don't just dominate the vote
These cities need food from low pop farm states like Kansas

Because it prevents a disproportionate lead in a handful of population centers from dictating policy for the rest of the nation.

Because if it was a population vote, candidates could campaign exclusively in LA and New York and ignore the rest of the country because the votes wouldn't be worth the effort

So the minority can protect their economic interests. Otherwise farmers and other groups spread out into the rural communities would have their needs entirely ignored, all funding would go to cities, and anyone who wasn't in a massive city would be fucked. Government spending would be non-existent in any area outside of the state capitals and the few large cities around them.

Not to mention that it makes rigging elections harder. As seen with the whole "3 Million Illegals" meme, many times voter fraud or even importing of voters for one side would happen. The entire country would be filled by immigrants, because they would vote for candidate X. Gibmedats would be at their highest, just to secure the largest segment of population to vote for them.

All in all, it's a bad idea.

Because democracy where everyone can votes is retarded

well then shouldn't base your government on a derivate of democracy

The country is called the

UNITED
>>>>>>STATES
OF AMERICA.

Key word. “states”. there’s a reason they have proportional anything. each state is sovereign. this is why they have governors and state legislatures and not a bunch of districts or regions. this is incredibly important. this is why the u.s. even began as a country.

When alexander hamilton went up to thomas jefferson or patrick henry and all the other anti-federalists and asked them to join his conceptual federally-dominated oligarchy, they told him to fuck off and create a more fragmented system of state-federal checks and balances.

This fragmentation of powers is the very foundation of western-styled representative democracy, and it’s why the u.s. became a country so peacefully compared to how France ousted the bourbons.

When states vote in the electoral college, they are casting their proportionally allocated votes as a state. the state is voting for the president, not the people. if you don’t understand this you’re a fucking fool.

Lets say there was one world government. If it was a democracy, China and India would get to rule everything and small nations like mine can't protect their interests.

>majority of counties
Means fuck all because Hillary won the popular vote.
Just because a governor wins more counties, it would mean fuck all if he or she didn't win the popular vote because that's how governors are elected.
The electoral college is an outdated system that favored SLAVE states and is gerrymandering at the national level

not really sure how more empty land should somehow mean something when delegating proportionality of votes.

it gives the states more power which makes it more likely for the states to unite and stay united. read the federalist papers or something.

It gives value to areas in the united states which have less population density, but on average produce far more goods than big cities.
If you look at ancient greece, the way citystates operated was like this:
A city in the center, and farmlands around it.
Farmers/woodworkers etc. didnt lived in the lands around the city. They would go to the city market to sell their goods. Even though the city usually had more people living inside of it, the vast majority of ressources came from outside of it.
If the lands around the city werent represented, there would be no ressources for the city.
The idea is kinda the same in modern days with obvious variants, but the principle remains.

Because with a straight popular vote, all government policy is aimed towards getting votes in a few population centers, so 80% of the country doesnt any representation.

Because it is the system that was agreed to. If they don't like it they campaign to have it changed through the proper channels or they can leave.

lived in the lands*

nice digits

Because most of the population is concentrated in a handful of key cities. You think any candidate would give a single shit about campaigning in the "flyover states" when they could just concentrate on the urban areas with the highest population density?

So California, New york, and Florida aren't dictating the direction of the country while telling the other 47 states to fuck off.

It was only designed for rich white men to vote and even allowed the electors to override

checked and basically this. federalism and electoral college was what the states agreed to originally to join the union. the alternative would be for one state to conquer the other 49 and then institute whatever form of government through imperialism.

It prevents states like California from deciding the entire election based only on their vote. Doesn't really work though since we found it necessary to give those fuckers 55 delegates.

This post right here

Specifically for us, the federal government is a union of states. So the States decide the President. No state is supposed to get a greater power to influence the election. This prevents centralisation around certain states
So say an elected president gives all of the benefits to the more influential states, decreasing funding and whatnot of the other states. It would not be too problatic since he is helping the state that matters the most during the election, keeping him and his party in power.
Simply extend that idea to include countys. It matters because each county should have an equal influence as opposed to the county with the most population.

It isn't necessarily better or worse. The system was needed to pass the constitution with the smaller colonies. It probably wouldn't have passed without it and it is severely unlikely it will ammended.

Wrong.

The electoral college is functioning perfectly. LA and NYC both have populations much larger than my entire state, and most states for that matter. You're city's vote doesn't count more because you have more people.

On gubernatorial elections:

Popular vote makes sense because it's the vote of the people of a state, to pick a representative of a state.

If anything, NY, CA, and WA SHOULD have electoral colleges for governor as well, because once again, the cities have their way and the people in the country are left to deal with it.

For most states, however, popular vote for governor makes tons of sense.

It prevents unqualified demagogues from hijacking the country. Oh wait....

because this is the united STATES of america

not united CITIES of america

Whoever made that image does not understand the fundamentals of density.

for the protection of minority rights, so that big states don't literally always win every election via population magnitude

because USA is not a democracy

It ensures all states have some kind of say, otherwise if we went by popular vote alone candidates would just have to campaign and win over the states with the biggest population.
that would be 2 states (ny and ca) deciding the fate of the country every time for all eternity.

>Demagogues

How does it feel to use big words MSM taught you?

god fucking damn it, I wish we had your system

alright, this one's better

See all of those blue counties on the map you posted? Most of the population lives in those counties. Do the people who live there know who would be the best leader for vastly red states like Oklahoma? Or Kansas? Of course not. If it were up to popular vote, the people living in New York and California would vote in their own interests all the time, meaning that middle America would get fucked nonstop. They need some sort of representation, otherwise we might as well do away with states and just have the federal government run everything.

The most valid explanation I've heard is that it gives representation to some of the biggest value-producing states in the Union.
US agriculture is impressively Soviet - I heard that there is a state which grows nothing but feed for animals raised in another state, which produces nearly nothing but meat.

These so-called 'fly overs' produce a quantity of commodities totally disproportionate to population, whilst the coasts have a higher population but produce less value per capita.

If this is for an essay, then the question of the electoral college ought to be a functional lead-in for an essay about the economic utility of the Midwest to overall US interests, and whether production is relevant to this question (it is).

if 20 people shit on a concrete street nothing grows, if 10 people shit all over the chest of america, food grows