"Electoral college exist so California don't elect every US president"

refute this

no

that isnt why the electoral college exists, california has only been in the us for like 150 years

Not necessarily California then, just a "California-like" state. Of course the founding fathers could never have envisioned anything as bad as California itself.

In 2004, George W. Bush won the popular vote by several percentage points, but if John Kerry had done just a little better in Ohio (which would have required a national uniform swing less significant than the national popular vote deficit), the Democrats would have won while losing the nationwide popular vote.

The Electoral College doesn't just disadvantage the Democrats - who it advantages and disadvantages is wholly dependent on certain factors which change from one election cycle to the next. The Democrats have just gotten unlucky in being on the wrong end of it two times in two decades. It could quite easily be a bitch in the opposite direction.

im glad it worked in our favor this time around, but i'd much rather have major decisions made by california than florida.

Isnt it numerically advantageous to Democrats though? If you count up all the "safe" states and likely Dem states, they start with a bigger number.

Major decisions huh. Like how to Sanctuary City, how to import voter crops (shitskins), how to promote the liberal agenda, and how to neuter the 2nd amendment? Major decisions should never be made by a state that hoards liberals.

This is my last threadly reminder so listen up.
We are a democratically elected republic, where states have rights. We fought a civil war over that fact, not slavery. Ensuring that states have rights is another part of our checks and balances. If California hates it so much, then why are they on a winner take all system?

Your genuinely a retard if you think California is anywhere close to being better than florida

california has an eighth the population. Now if a popular vote would mean candidates would only focus on big states then a high amount of energy would be spent by both candidates in ca and ny, and the margins would be close enough to where other states would be the deciding factor. Its basic math.

>civil war
>not about slavery
And we should call it "The War of Northern Aggression" right?

That's not an unreasonable name. I suppose it depends on whether or not you recognize the CSA as a separate country. It could only be called a civil war if not, and there seem to be some pretty good arguments for why it ought to be regarded as one.

t. Northerner

California has far more electoral votes than any other state though. The reason republicans have to fight an uphill battle every election and win EVERY swing state in order to have a chance to win is because of California, and other democratic states tend to have more electoral votes than republican states.
Prove me wrong

Southern public schools actually refer to it by that name. They try to push the narrative that they're the victim so in the past 30 years we've gotten the revisionist narrative that the war was about "states rights".
Also
>attack a federal fort
>don't expect any sort of retaliation

It's a sufficiently complex issue at a glance that I don't have a firm view on it. All I know is I was given a one-sided and distorted story in school, being left to think it was just all about ending slavery.

This is how it went: the US wanted to enforce it's views on slavery on the south, particularly the de facto nobility who owned almost all the slaves. this is where the "about slavery" narritive comes from (lincoln would add the moral crusade aspect much later). CSA decided to secede and become the CSA, which they claimed a right to do. this, along with the federal government having no right to decide the legality of slavery (which is why an amendment was needed) is where the "about states rights" narrative comes from. of course, the USA said the CSA had no right to secede and sent a huge army of irish immigrants to destroy the south. the southern aristocrats used this papist threat to rouse the average farmer to arms. this is where the "war of northern aggression" narrative comes from.

the civil war is pretty complex, and no one narrative really captures the whole conflict.

bush won pop vote in 04 without cali

lots of republicans have

electoral college favors republicans, marginally, since it's senators plus reps, and 2 senators are guaranteed regardless of population

fair point

clinton knew the game she was playing. she just neglected the upper midwest

obama won iowa by 10% in 2008. Clinton lost Iowa by 10%

CA has the biggest population and also the biggest spread, you would need half the states with a 2% spread just to cancel that out.