Let's Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco decide every election!

twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802708596152823808
This is one of the reasons why no one trust jews

Other urls found in this thread:

russia-insider.com/en/heres-who-sat-putins-table-rt-dinner-photo/ri11855
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>ranked
more like rank as shit as expected of fourth party Jew.
It's the only way she can expect to win with R and D getting 1 and 4 from majority and her hoping to get by from 2s.

We should switch to a meritocracy where only qualified people get to vote.

>STEIN

No idea why people were falling for this meme in the first place.

And how do you measure that someone is qualified?

Hard Mode: Don't say college degree.

doesn't work. Can't decide who is "qualified"

just make it people not on welfare and the system is fixed

Service guarantees citizenship

only people that don't live from the gobement should vote.
So no students, goberment workers, retireds or veterans.

>keep electrical college
>make every state proportional
>allow ranked voting
>make voting more difficult (aka voting ID and no early voting)

There, fix it for u

this, also for niggers is necesary to have at least 5 years of professional experience and two personal recommendations from white people.

>Clinton + Trump: Want democracy? Enact laws guaranteeing the presidency to whomever receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.

Thats already in place, and the electors just vote the result. Fucking megajew, she needs to be gassed.

Property owner

>lose
>claim you are helping integrity of elections
>call for rule changes that have worked for over 200 years and designed to give states fair share votes based on reps

>no students
This
>veterans
No.

"illegal being voters? Yes! They can vote, yes!
We must make sure that San Francisco and New York elect every president from now on"

-- Jill Stein

why is there only a fuss about the electoral college whenever a republican wins?

If we do that, we need national ID laws when it comes to voting, which would wipe out a significant portion of the democratic electorate.

>Stein
>Clinton
>Soros
>etc

What if they just changed the distribution of votes?
>X for popular vote
>Y for winning majority of counties or portion them out by how many counties are won

>we need national ID laws
THIS is oppressive

We must not allow that to happen in the 21st century. Literally remembers me of the Dark Ages!

Property owning males. Alternatively military service.

>Ranked Choice Voting

wtf is this crap?

Oh your "alt-right" your voting card is invalid.
Oh your social score is too low to vote.
Oh you said nigger and that's hate speech, no votes for you!

The other problem is that these super hard blue cities could easily rig votes

?
No its about not making vote third party into a spoiler vote.

I actually ran the numbers on this the other day.

The three largest cities in the US - New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago - are frequently carried by Democrats by as much as 15-20 points.

If we switched to a pure, national popular vote for our elections, a candidate who carries those three cities 65-35 of the vote in those three cities could lose EVERY single other county in the United States 45-55 and still win the election.


If that right there doesn't prove why the electoral college is so important, I don't know what more could.

>fucking leaf doesn't understand what ranked voting is

Come on m8, you're part of the Commonwealth.

>Want democracy?

The founding fathers sure as fuck didn't.

Maybe she should fuck off and be a founding mother to her own god damn country.

Military service. SJWs would be BTFO forever.

how is that china social score thing going along anyways?

Only veterans of the military, police, fire department, Paramedics, and other people who are responsible for national safety should vOTE and hold office.

How many Cali and NY Republicans don't even bother voting? If it went to PV they might change things.

This. This all the way.

I know the constitution party would be doing a lot better if we used PV.

>Break down any state with more than 25 votes to split vote system like Maine.
>Terriory based.
>Now Jew York and Commieforinia arent 100 free votes for democrats.
>They never get elected again.

What do you think about my plan?

redpill me on rank choice voting.

Seems retarded.

Precisely - rigging the vote in a single key county in a swing state is damned near impossible, because it's difficult to predict results on election night accurately enough in every state to make the rigging convincing, and any close results are going to be under close scrutiny.

In a national popular vote, it's a cakewalk. You just make up a few votes here, a few there, that adds up. It's also easier to cover up the rigging, instead of looking for a few thousand fake votes in a key district, you're talking about tens or hundreds of votes spread in thousands of counties.

Clinton claims to have won the popular vote by about 1.9 million votes. That's only a little over 600 votes per county in the US.

...

Makes election night more fun when you don't know the results of some states.

For example, If you split Florida into a north and south, then you know south is blue and north is red every year. Not as exciting.

>want democracy?

No.

No wonder this dumb fuck lost to Gary Johnson.

What's the basis for "qualified"? Land ownership? Monetary worth? Military service?

>Land ownership?
Sure.
>Monetary worth?
No.
>Military service?
Definetly.

Because the left can't hold itself to its own standards due to the fact that most of them are self-centered, child minded people who care about superficial things.

This is a bitter jew that wasted her money
Jews hate losing money
Also her vagina is now dry
Menopausal cunt

It literally just reinforces the existing two party system.

You rank all your choices from first to last, and at each "level" of the vote counting, if your first choice doesn't hit a certain threshold, your vote switches to your next choice, and so on and so on until someone wins.

So suppose you voted

1) Stein
2) Johnson
3) Trump
4) Clinton

If Stein doesn't get at least __% of the vote, your vote switches to Johnson, if Johnson doesn't get at least __% of the vote, your vote switches to Trump, and so on.

For the issue of land ownership; since it can be inherited, don't you think that it is a poor indicator of being qualified? Similar to how getting a college degree now a days is easier, would the same thing not happen to those who barely do anything for their land, and ultimately became liberal due to the lack of hardship?

I agree with the military part however.

One question, doesnt USA have an extreme amount of presidential candidates? How the hell do ranked vote works with this extreme amount of candidates?

That's exactly how you cause a civil war.

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds stupid.

russia-insider.com/en/heres-who-sat-putins-table-rt-dinner-photo/ri11855

just sowing more discord

There are pros and cons to it, just like in any system.

Ranked/runoff voting works really well in countries with multiple established parties like Australia or the UK, but in a country like the US where you really only have two major parties, it doesn't.

You make a good point.

I've wanted to keep land ownership because of tradition but it seems less and less like it's the right choice.

I like But I think we should do some things like expand the national guard on the condition that it's only there to defend the nation and overseas service in anything but a defensive war should be volunteer only. And that way we have people going through their military training and being qualified to serve, without completely depleting our workforce by having every single person signing up for the professional army for 4 years.

If we had some sort of home guard program like that where I could sign up only for stuff like recovery efforts in my state after natural disasters and defensive wars I'd join the military in a heartbeat

Just have five parties, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green and Constituion.

Before the main election each party does its primaries like normal to determine their candidate.

Works great for places like the Senate, but in the House it still usually comes down to two parties. At least that's the situation down here in Australia.

Works fine here in Australia where the senate has 100+ candidates

Hint: you don't have to number them all

Depending on which state you're in (not all third-parties will qualify for every state's ballot) you could have anywhere from four or five to more than a dozen candidates for president on your ballot...


... however all these third-parties put together rarely get more than 5% of the popular vote, so a ranked vote wouldn't really make a difference to offset how much power major cities would have over election results.

That's will pretty much guarantee the destruction of republic, since they will have to partially abolish article 2. People in states that actually produce something will rightly feel betrayed and have every legal and ethical right to exit this union.
Unless they're willing to start full scale civil war - it's a dumbest idea i ever heard.

Why not simply:

Qualified
>Persons who are actively contributing, have contributed, or will contribute to society. The employed, the retired, and students over the voting age.

Unqualified
>Persons who are not actively contributing to society. The chronically unemployed or those who have never looked for employment, education, or job training.


If you've got a job, retired from a job, or are enrolled in school - you qualify to vote. If you're out of school and have been unemployed for more than X months, you're no longer considered qualified to vote. Obviously there would be some exceptions, but it's a pretty straightforward approach, I think.

>redpill me on rank choice voting.
There are many ways of doing ranked voting system.

The voting system usa uses, NOT talking about the electoral system but the way usa pick the winner of the states, is the worse system ever.

The system favor big names, you wont vote for anyone else other than Clinton and Trump because your vote wont matter.

Ranked system, means putting all candidates in order from best to worst, and using this data to decide the election. At some cases you don't need to rank all characters in order and the ones you don't rank will be tied at last place.

One voting system where people must rank candidates is called instant run off.

One example with 3 candidates, and 5 guys voting
Voter 1: Jill > Trump > Hillary
Voter 2: Hillary > Trump > Jill
Voter 3: Hillary > Trump > Jill
Voter 4: Trump > Hillary > Jill
Voter 5: Trump > Hillary > Jill
The best voted ones are trump and Hillary tied with 40% of the votes. Since they don't have 50%+ of the votes, you need an second round.
You now remove the least voted candidate, Jill and if someone voted for jill, his second favorite candidate is now his main candidate.
Voter 1 is now: Trump > Hillary
Now, trump has 60% of votes and hillary has 40% of votes, trump is the winner.

This system is better, than the current way pick the votes, because you can vote for small candidates without wasting your vote, if almost no one votes for jill, she "will leave the election" and your will be able to decide the best candidate between trump and hillary

But this system have some flaws, being the most voted candidate is not enough to be considered the winner, but being the worst candidate is enough to be considered the loser.

The point of land ownership requirement is you have to have a stake in the country to vote. Think of it like stock in a company. Letting just anyone vote would destroy a company because people will just vote themselves goodies without consequence until nothing is left. And if the country is fucked they just move. And this is much easier for people without land in the first place.

I've always felt our current welfare system should only apply to the people you put in the Qualified category.
If they try to contribute and still can't make ends meet we should assist them.

While the aid received by those in the unqualified category would be limited to like bunkhouses and rations instead of monetary aid. Give em enough to live but not comfortable enough that they don't want to get off of welfare.

I still think the military, police, paramedic, firefighter etc would be the better requirement for voting, since it requires an extra level of commitment to you nation than simply going to school. But that should still be easily accessible to the average man with options like volunteer firefighters and a home guard military branch.

Ideally I'd like our standing army size to be reduced and soldiers manning positions like firefighters, road maintenance crews and such, so we can have a large army without it being impractical and expensive.

Another system is the coombs method.
Imagine this.
Voter 1: Hillary > Jill> Trump
Voter 2: Hillary > Jill > Trump
Voter 3: Hillary > Jill> Trump
Voter 4: Trump > Jill> Hillary
Voter 5: Trump > Jill> Hillary
Voter 6: Trump > Jill> Hillary
Voter 7: Jill > Trump > Hillary

No one has more than 50% of the votes so we must remove someone and go to the next round.

Now instead of removing the candidate with least amount of first place votes, you remove the candidate with most amount of last place votes.
The candidate most people hate is hillary, and she he removed.
The votes become.
Voter 1: Jill> Trump
Voter 2: Jill > Trump
Voter 3: Jill> Trump
Voter 4: Trump > Jill
Voter 5: Trump > Jill
Voter 6: Trump > Jill
Voter 7: Jill > Trump

At this case jill is the winner.

This system has also a flaw, this one also doesn't follow his own logic, being the most voted is not enought to win the election (you must have 50%+ of votes) but being considered the worst candidate by most voters is enought.
So you need 50%+ votes to be considered the best candidate, but dont need 50%+ to be considered the worst candidate.

This one have also some problem when you have alot of candidates, you wouldn't give the score of worst candidate to some unknown candidate since you doesn't know how he is, so you will have alot of candidates tied with 0 "worst candidate votes" .

With less candidates this is better than instant run off, since you will actually find the worst candiate by looking who people think its the worst.
With instant run off, you assume the worst candidate is the candidate least amount people think its the best and this is a shitty assumption.
As some example, with instant runoff if no one think candidate X is the best candidate, but he receives all the second place votes, he will be removed from the next round

Taxpayers

>buys small piece of land and don't work it

How about dividing the Vote power over taxes paid.

33% of the vote would go to the 33% top tax income
33% of the vote would go to the middle 33% of income tax
And the lowest 33% goes to the rest

Example:
10 people pay $10 million in taxes
next 1000 people pay $10 million in taxes
and 100000 people pay together $10 million in taxes

A middle class vote would be 100 times more powerful than a lower class vote

ikr, what a stupid child minded jewess. you know whats really bad, that any one voted for her at all. fucking bernout losers.
millennial cucks should be shot.

>Let's let the majority of people living in the country decide the presidential election

Whoaaaaaaaaa

Welfare is a leftist scam. It makes people dependent on it. In effect making them more likely to be left leaning. Same is true for government workers doing jobs that don't need doing in the first place. If you want to redistribute wealth and help people with low income just replace it with universal income or negative income tax. Less waste, more money in the hands of people who need it and less leftists.

They still vote because the president isn't the only thing on the ballot in an election. They have local and state offices to fill as well as congressional races and ballot measures. If you're going to make this claim then don't forget there are more people living in red states who have their votes canceled out and under your argument would be encouraged to vote with this change.

>eradicate the electoral college
>implement strict Voter ID laws
>the millions of republicans in California, Upstate NY, and Illinois who were disenfranchised to vote since their state was auto-blue suddenly come out of the shadows to vote
>republicans win every election
>yfw

That's exactly how the Prussian system worked in the past. Seems better to me than the current system. The main problem would be implementing it.

Those two while not good ones, its better then current usa method: "vote on one candidate, the one with most votes, win the state"

There are many others ranked voting systems, check wikipedia, it has awesome examples of it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

There is also rated systems.
One example is "give score from 1 to 10 to ALL candidates, the one with biggest average score is the winner of the state" called range voting
Another one is, "give yes to all candidates you want to win, yes means 1 point, the candidate with most points is the winner of the state.", this is called approval system.
Another one is "give yes to all candidates you want to LOSE, yes means 1 point, the candidate with least amount of points is the winner of the state."

Range vote becomes a problem with an extreme amount candidates, if just one person give a score of 10 to candidate, his average score will be 10, does this means he should win? NOPE

Sounds like some commie bullshit intended to give voice to foreigners. Fuck off commie cunt.

It's not just about being qualified. It's about having a stake in the wellbeing of the country. If you own property and the country does bad your property value and quality of living decreases. They will naturally vote for a president that benefits hard-working individuals, thus make more people contribute and do their part. If you're a welfare sponge that owns nothing then naturally you'll want more money from the property owning class regardless of how that affects them or the country.

>Want democracy?

Nope.

Also this system would probably create a ton of social unrest. Might be better to just have a threshold at which point you get equal voting rights. American system in the 18th and 19th century required you to pay a poll tax to vote.

Why vote in paper when you can vote in lead?

...

>implement voter ID laws
ha.

AHAHA

HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA

never gonna happen.

Man, marijuana gilf really is mental.

>millions of missing clinton votes will be found

>t. increasingly nervous Juan

>>yfw

>Simple majority is the only kind of democracy

Wow that really got me wonderin'

You mean people would vote instead of land? Sounds like an utter nightmare

Property owners or military service

Not really, ranked direct voting is actually pretty tame.

Because the only time a Republican has won the popular vote since 1988 is in 2004, dog.

White males

>males
That's not doable, taxpayer would be sufficient and 21+ voting would help the Republicans.

Taxpayers.

It would be, since shitskin votes would actually matter

Service guarantees citizenship.

white male land owners

most fags don't even know what local elections are .... part of the reason republicans control shit is because we are not retarded and go vote in mid term elections and primaries.

If Democrats are butt blasted about bernie losing they need to start voting in the primaries for the local parties. Us Republicans figued this out with the Ron Paul revolution.

Change the party, not sweat every 4 years over president.

how much you pay to the state in taxes