Why do conservatives think that surface area matters more than people?

Why do conservatives think that surface area matters more than people?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Becuase you live in a republic not a democracy

why do you think an elector in Ohio should vote against his own state?

Why do liberals believe that California and New York should decide everything?

Overpopulation
Price of land will definately be > price of OP in time

Because that's how the US was created. States wouldn't give up their power without a check in place. If not for the electoral college we'd likely be a confederation of states... quit being retarded.

>Why do conservatives think that surface area matters more than people?

Caliexit and determine your own fate...leave my state alone with that craziness.

>Why do conservatives think that surface area matters more than people?

Because that's how the election laws are written.

LOL

we passed civics class

HA HA HA YOU FUCKING CUNT

because we own all the guns and we'll just kill you

Why do liberals think that America is one big state?

BITCH LITERALLY LOST A RIGGED ELECTION

You knew the rules before the election and didnt care dont cry now.

Just admit u don't want to live in a true democracy then.

/thread

Nice strawman, faggot

logical fallacy based on tradition

generallly I don't, but so long as the electoral college DOES exist, it should be utilized as intended, in that electors can change their votes when the president-elect is thought to be unqualified, authoritarian, has conflicts of interests, etc.

Umm, they don't? They have a lot of influence, however, because they have very large populations.

what?

The check already exists. It's called the senate.

what logical fallacy based on tradition? the fact that our country is a republic? don't be a moron, that isn't a fallacy it's simply a fact

Because its a republic, not a democracy.

>unqualified, authoritarian, has conflicts of interests, etc.
that fits Hillary more than Donald

but your argument is that it's a republic, and therefore shouldn't be changed, and cannot be scrutinized when people call for more democracy

The "but it's a republic!" meme was a very common argument back when senators were selected by state governors, rather than elected by the people. I don't know about you, but I rather like being able to vote for my representatives directly.

>logical fallacy based on tradition

You're terrible at trolling

It's United States not United People.

it's not an argument because our country is a republic. There's no debating this, I'm just going to assume that you're a pretending to be retarded.

Slide thread, move on folks

would you be debating this if Hillary won?

Riggity riggity rekt.

Nice one jose

There's more diversity representing everything but cities, than it is to represent cities alone.

You're alright Paco.

Donald Trump, who has never held elected office or served in the military (draft dodger, in fact), is more qualified than a political activist, politically active first lady, two-term senator, and secretary of state? Hillary Clinton is more authoritarian than Donald Trump, who wants to increase the size of our military even further, thinks there's nothing wrong with policing today in America, wants to enhance the drug war, wants to kill terrorists' families even if they're innocent, wants to bring back torture, and wants to jail and strip the citizenship of people who merely burn the flag? Okay bro.

I'm no hillary supporter - didn't even vote for her. But you're delusional.

True democracy is cancer. The unwashed masses can't even govern themselves, why should they be given the ability to govern others?

>Bitch about logical fallacy
>makes ad populum fallacy
Lel what a retard.

He won and I support all of that.

Are you just pretending to be this dense?

>Sanctuary for your feelings
Keep telling yourself that.

>logical fallacy based on tradition
Don't use big words your brain can't handle

here you go user.

>federal public office
>"muh states"

>logical fallacy based on tradition

I generally ignore shitposts, but I just couldn't with this one. Here's your (You).

can you be more of a retard?


democracy and republic aren't mutually exclusive

all democracies are republics, and america is a federated constitutional democratic republic

The 17th amendment was a mistake.

If I could choose between preserving a patch of lawn or 20 million niggers, I'd pick the lawn.

>implying shitpost

For all your talk, you conservatives sure are have a difficult time proving me wrong so far.

If only net contributors had the right to vote. i.e those who pay more in taxes than they claim in gov services had the right to vote then a democracy could work. But as long as welfare babies and government employees are allowed to vote then they will only vote to steal more money from the productive citizens. The point is you NEED productive citizens to keep producing. Gov employees and welfare babies less so. Recognise that the productive states vote are worth more. See if you can do without food longer than the farmers can do without debt and 'culture'

>logical fallacy based on tradition
Here's a (You)

BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVING IN SPARSELY POPULATED AREAS ALSO MATTER

FARMS AND STUFF

COMPLETELY CRAZY, I KNOW

I rape infants and made a billion dollars when my only job was working for the government on a government salary- Hillary Cuntin

Because conservatives hate democracy and what to abolish it.

WOW YOU'RE RIGHT

THEY DO MATTER! JUST AS MUCH AS EVERYONE ELSE!

Friendly reminder that there are 0 (zero) countries in the world that have direct democracy where only the popular vote matters. Not even Switzerland is a direct democracy.

...

I'm not sure if this is bait or not, but it literally has nothing to do with surface area.

It has to do with population density. The electoral college system is to ensure that all states are equally represented. If this were not the case, only about three or four states would decide an election.

>It's a republic
>people call for more democracy
>It doesn't matter what the people call for because it's not a democracy


>The "but it's a republic!" meme was a very common argument back when
All your electors yesterday had their mails on auto-reply because everyone was writing them to change to clinton and there they stated you are still a republic and not a democracy.

>I don't know about you, but I rather like being able to vote for my representatives directly.
Great, so do many others around the world. But you are too retarded to understand anything. We have here what you want... in theory. Guess what happens? The politicians fuck the people over anyway. Get it into your fucking head that it was never about "what you want" and it never will be about "what you want".

The ones in charge are the ones with the money, your shitty vote doesn't count. All this switched when the industrialists became more weatlhy than the monarchs and could excert more power. The Tsar before WW1 was reluctant for full blown industrialization because of this, the other countries (Germany still had it mostly under control) were completely subverted already.

The only way your vote would matter in any way is when you have the system of switzerland where you can decide on some policies from time to time. If you don't have that, don't give me this "I like being able to vote for my representatives directly". As long as you directly vote for people and not for policies, you vote won't matter.

so why does the virtue of living in the blue zone matter less than living in the grey zone?

Nobody is still answering the question as to why surface area matters more than actual people.

Why do wetbacks think their votes count?

>Friendly reminder that there are 0 (zero) countries in the world that have direct democracy where only the popular vote matters. Not even Switzerland is a direct democracy.

Reminder no country is a ""real" democracy.

see:

People have already answered why, you're just being a retard plugging up your ears.

>It's called the Senate.
And it's those Senate votes that factor into the electoral college.

You don't win elections by importing and cramming as many spics and niggers into your states, and promise them welfare for votes. God knows the libkikes are trying, though.

Because cities have larger populations, so if you would decide based on popular vote, the rural areas would get screwed every election cycle.

and this

New York has more electors than, say Montana, even though surface area is clearly smaller.
Nobody is complaining, you're imagining.

first post best post

>People have already answered why

but... they haven't...

>logical fallacy based on tradition

loving
every
laugh

Wasn't there one that voted for Harambe?

>wanting people stupid enough to live in cities have complete power in elections
no thanks

Honestly just sounds like leftist butthurt.

The electoral college is meant to represent their constituents. If they "change their mind" because leftist media told them to, then they can be prosecuted and their vote reckoned meaningless.

Having more democracy and popular votes won't stop stupid and authoritarian people from getting into power.

but... they have...

>>so why does the virtue of living in the blue zone matter less than living in the grey zone?
>implying i would post that bullshit unironically lo fuckin l

Maybe you should spend less time laughing, and tell me why I'm wrong then.

I'm waiting.

see: And actually read it this time.

>generallly I don't, but so long as the electoral college DOES exist, it should be utilized as intended, in that electors can change their votes when the president-elect is thought to be unqualified, authoritarian, has conflicts of interests, etc.

They could have. They didn't. Go cry elsewhere.

Because it's not a logical fallacy to begin with. Not to mention you've been btfo heavily already.

Enjoy your dead thread as you fish for (you)s

Because otherwise people in smaller states will not be equally represented. This is a republic not a democracy. It's over go home and live your life

This thread has no value since OP is retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.

I did, and it's a weak argument. The "states" wouldn't be deciding the election - the people would be.

I'm not crying at all. I'm actually quite calm, besides being bewildered at how many conservatives live in a bubble.

This thread has no value since OP is retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.

Why do ""progressives"" think that feelings matter more than freedums?

>Because it's not a logical fallacy to begin with.

Except it is.

Maybe you should actually read about it, instead of talking about something you don't understand.

Here's a couple of links for you

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition

me too

This thread has no value since OP is retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.

You are delusional if you truly believe that "the people" would make the right decision if they were left to their own devices.

Are you familiar with the concept of the low-information voter? The people that get their "news" from places like The Daily Show and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon? You want them deciding who runs the country?

Except in reality there are Republicans in New York and Democrats in Texas whose votes don't matter.

>If this were not the case, only about three or four states would decide an election.
But this is literally true. Without the electoral college candidates wouldn't have to suck Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania's cocks and instead appeal to everyone.

The Electoral College is a holdover from a time when information traveled very slowly, but this is no longer the case. Be honest, the only reason you guys are defending it is because it allowed Trump to become president but if the results were flipped (Trump winning popular vote by 3 million but losing EC vote) you'd all be losing your minds and trying to meme more faithless electors into reality.

Because socio-economics vary from state to state. The blue zone can have 50000x the populous of other zones, that doesn't mean they should have a larger say in anything.

I live in a country where 1 single province can dictate what Government is formed during an election. It fucking sucks to know that your vote literally means nothing because populous density matters.

>based on tradition

Based on the law. Ftfy. You could try to change it by going through Congress... Oh right, they don't want to change that. How does it feel knowing he'll be selecting at least 1 Supreme Court Judge? It might be more.

>logical fallacy based on tradition
Lmao @ ur life senpai

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

This thread has no value since OP is retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.

>This thread has no value since OP is retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.

This thread has no value since OP is a retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.

>Without the electoral college candidates wouldn't have to suck Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania's cocks and instead appeal to everyone

>What is nationwide campaigning?

To be honest, I did not vote in this election because I did not feel that either candidate was fit for the position. There was no good candidate - even back in the early primaries.

>The winner not having the popular vote is undemocratic
>An elector failing to represent the voters in his district to appease a different state is democratic.

Burger logic.

He is aware. He is just salty that Hillary lost.

lets compromise, hillary can be president of california and trump can be president of the rest

It's not burger logic leaf, it's cuckold logic.

This thread has no value since OP is a retarded faggot. Dumping pictures of smug anime girls.