Popular Vote Over Electoral

>we should support the outcome because the people decided
>President-elect is behind 2.5 million votes
>Trumpfags will defend this shit
Why does Sup Forums unironically defend this?

Other urls found in this thread:

a.pomf.cat/lymmgn.webm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

stop posting that coal burner whore

Sup Forums doesn't think. They're just reactionaries edgy faggots without any real convictions or life experience

Watch every reply to me be some variation of a meme. They literally don't have any brain power or creativity, that's why every conversation here just breaks down into people yelling memes at eachother. This doesn't happen on any other board

>Hillary has a 4.3 million vote lead in California thanks to all the Mexicans and liberals
>letting one state decide a national election
>""""democracy""""
And for the record, it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic

MADAM PRESIDENT
DRUMPF BTFO

OP can't help it

But one state didn't decide the election, all votes in the popular vote are counted equally, regardless of state.

you cant change the rules of the game afterwards, you have to do it before the competition

When did either candidate decide that the electors should decide the President?

Does it ever get old posting this same shit everyday?

Are you doing this without being compensated monetarily?

...

...

Let's consider the hypothetical situation where 99% of the country lives in a single state and the other 1% is spread out of the other remaining 49 states. If we used the popular vote, then there is virtually zero chance those 49 states would have their voices heard. Even if they have fewer people, they're still part of the country and deserve representation. That's why the electoral college exists. It corrects that problem, albeit on a smaller scale.

Not an agrument; you've done nothing to challenge the points I've made

Well no shit, why shouldn't the majority of people have more influence on the vote?

Because that means only things pertaining to one area of the country will be addressed. Which doesn't work when you have a union of states.

>he says about himself

seriously though, california allows illegals to vote, many places dont require id, lots of people boasting on social media about voting multiple times(all hillary supporters).

deduct those votes and trump probably won the popular vote too.

We really need to start looking for an answer to the liberal question.

How so? When you look at it, when 99% if people have problems, I'm sure no one would oppose taking care of 99% of the nation's problems over 1%

get them out of academia

...

Because then there is no reason for the other states to stay in the union. They'd be better off being sovereign nations. I'd expect a liberal to understand how unions work.

we've done it a million times, fuck off with your weak bait threads loser LMFAO

cant even win an election but thinks they have a right to a real discussion from the people that raped his asshole KEKKK as if we talk to losers


SAGE EM BOYZ

No, that's a reason for 1% to fuck off.

Right, which is what they would do. And the country would be worse off for it, since usually other states bring things to the table that make up for not having as many people. Hell, one could argue than an overpopulated state is a burden on the rest

Why are you upset that trump won?

The United States isn't a true Democracy, you stupid cunt.

You're such a fucking faggot. When those 2.5 million votes came from commiefornia are recourse Ted and seen as legit I'll allow them to still sit there while trump takes office

Faggot!

These things could still happen even if not in the same country.

>President-elect is behind 2.5 million votes
It just means Trump will never have the political mandate or the will of the majority of American voters.

But he will be president so I guess that's something

Great, so go ahead and take all your illegals and secede from the US with the rest of California. You can have Hilldog as your monarch.

So by your logic we should still take their tax money? You must not know much about American history whatsoever.
Let's just be clear. The rules are: the electoral college decides. 100% of the people who voted agreed to those rules. 100% of the candidates agreed to those rules. You lost according to the very rules you played by. Sports teams have better honor than democrats do.

The problem is the majority isn't being heard, which is someone less significant to the minority

The majority of states were heard, not the majority of people.

>commiefornia
Uses "commies" as a slur
Doesn't seem to realize the former commie Putin got his candidate elected
Now he unironically worships a former communist.

I'll give it two years before they go bankrupt and end up being carpet bombed for letting illegals come into the US.

Who says their problems can only be fixed by one candidate? Who says the state doesn't have any say?

When you're 2.5 million behind, but the winner, that's the majority being ignored.

The founding fathers despised democracy as mob rule.

Of course you commies love it.

we have a relativity young country, but our government is the 9th oldest in the world. our system if fine. fuck off

The majority of states being hear is more important than the majority of people being heard.

The founding fathers also believed only land-owning white males could vote.

>And for the record, it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic
America is a democracy and a constitutional republic.

The US Constitution establishes America's form of government a republic and the US Constitution establishes America's type of governance a representative democracy.

There are 3 distinct democratic institutions established in our Constitution.
-->the direct democratic election of District Representatives
-->the State legislatures' democratic election of Senators
-->the democratic Electoral College to elect the President and Vice President
The "People" of the several states are assigned this right in Article I:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the People of the several states..."
Anyone with the reading comprehension of a 9th grader can see very clearly that the founding fathers created a republic, then immediately built the democracy need to sustain it.

I know why corporations trick conservatives into falsehoods. The weaker they make you think you authority is, the stronger their artificial personhood becomes. The question I have is this: How could a legal fiction fool a natural person into surrendering his inalienable right to exercise his natural authority over his government? How did you let Koch industries trick you into falling for that "America is not a democracy" lie?

I didn't say that. You did.
Pres Trump never said that he'd fix everything by himself. Nobody expected him to. >2.5 million behind
Trump campaigned on the set of rules which were required to win: get electoral votes.
If the popular vote was what decided, he would have campaigned differently.
The election is OVER!
Trump WON.
You're just coming off as a sore loser by questioning the result over and over again.

The system wasn't designed to allow the majority to run rough shod over everyone else.

It was designed to protect liberty from the mob who would inevitably try to throw it away.

send nevada with them, it's a shit hole

And the founding fathers didn't have a problem with non-citizens voting and corrupting the election.

Sounds like they were pretty smart.

Here marks the date user unironically defended corn being more important than people. Land doesn't vote, the people in the land do

Universal suffrage is a terrible thing.

We allow people who are essentially wards of the state to vote themselves more government benefits every year.

It's not a survivable situation in the long run.

There needs to be a balance between the power per person and the power per demographic (represented by states), this is what the electoral college aims to accomplish. You need representation from a wide variety of people with differing world experiences, hiveminds are dangerous

he said of states, hillary only won like 20

People comprise the states. In order to ensure each state is represented, there needs to be a balance. Otherwise California can just have Mexicans pump out babies all day long to take over the US.

>Communism is bad! And scary! Look at that menacing red color!!!!

Communism only scares the NEETs, which is 99% of Sup Forums,

They live under the same roof as us, so they have just as much right to decide who leads it.

>The founding fathers despised democracy as mob rule.
The founding fathers despised Athenian (direct) democracy as mob rule because according to Socrates, it kinda was.
The founding fathers could not possibly have been talking about our American representative democracy because it hadn't even been created yet.

>We should let California alone determine an election

Sure thing pinko.

The problem with the electoral college is that it's a winner take all system, leaving the other half that voted unheard.

Because 3 million Californians don't have the same problems as different parts of the country.

ca doesn't really decide our elections, i'd say florida has decided the elections the past few cycles

So you don't believe in borders then? Hope you don't have locks on your door, since its the same principle.

>Communism only scares the NEETs


That doesn't make any sense. Communism is the perfect form of government for NEETs since they can have free gibs without having to contribute at all.

>Otherwise California can just have Mexicans pump out babies all day long to take over the US.
Translation: The GOP keeps me irrationally terrified of Mehicans!

That's not a problem with the electoral college, its a problem with first past the post voting.

> Otherwise California can just have Mexicans pump out babies all day long to take over the US.

As opposed to.. the extremely valuable native Americans I guess? It's literally a nation of immigrants.

>WTF I HATE THE USA NOW??????????

Being the most populated state sure does bring differences in an election decided by who had more votes.

It's not communism that is scary, it's that there are people still dumb enough to be unironic communists that's scary

I love how Democrat voters always prove the thick, low intelligence fat American stereotype to be true.

No country worth respecting uses the popular vote system to elect their leader. France and Russia are the only two of note that do and they have a hybrid system when they have an appointed prime minister to balance out presidential power.

So unless you want to be in the same league as so many banana republics I'd drop the moronic desire for a popular vote system. Proportional representation would be the best system but Americans can't conceive of a world with anything more complicated than two parties.

Also Hildawg only barely won in major cities with large illegal immigrant populations. Go five miles out of those areas and its all red. So yeah, go for the popular vote if you want but you'll regret it when you let urban fags make decisions for rural people. Piss off the people who procure your water, energy and food. See how it turns out....I'd love that.

I actually don't have a problem with them, it was just an example of how direct democracy fails.

Illegal immigrants do play a role in our societies.

This is how I recognise American citizens.

I haven't literally said "what the fuck" out loud on the internet in years

I really really like that picture OP

mind if I save it?

>it was just an example of how direct democracy fails
How did direct democracy fail in this case?

But it is, when the electoral votes only represent the vote of the winner you end up with everyone else that voted differently unrepresented.

That's a straw man. We have borders for the same reason you have locks on your house. Someone could break into your house and play a role in there too, but you probably shouldn't let them.

you fucking cuck the +2.5mil votes comes from commiefornia

That's literally not how it works. You can't be a NEET in a proper communist state. Not by choice, at least.

>we should elect Hillary because neither candidate won the majority of the votes
Dumbass libtards.

It's still popular vote , it's just popular vote per state with each state being allotted a certain amount of points
it's not perfect but it's fairer than having california and new york decide every election

Why not? They are playing a role. I have relied on them playing that role. If I kick them out I need someone to replace that role.

THis basically.

Anyone who studied a bit of political science knows that there isn't any republic that is not also a democracy.

You can't have one without the other. If it's a republic, it "concerns everyone" (res publica), therefore everyone can have their say in how public things are run.

It's just a matter of logic. People who say the USA "is a republic not a democracy" are just uncultured, they don't know what republic means.

Get raked, leaf trash. You people don't have any value beyond memes. You deserve every bullshit response that you get for having the audacity to even fucking exist. You're entire country is just a anally-gaped leech forever suckling on the superpower's teet.

One state could seize power from the rest of them.

Yeah, there's always going to be losers in any system where there is only one winner.

They should go play in a gas chamber instead. You should too.

whats to like about a whore that takes nigger dick? remind you of your mom?

DONT YOU DARE USE BESTIA GIRL IN YOUR SHITPOSTS REEEEE

...

That doesn't mean that 63 Californian votes should have the same say in public matters as one peasant's vote in a flyover state.

That's a distortion of political will.

The big state would get almost all electoral votes. Not just Republicans own those 3-4 point states there's DE, VT, DC.

True, but it's fair and everyone had their voice heard. Electoral just represents the vote for who was the majority.

Actually California would have 100% decided this election had it been popular vote only

>Communism is the perfect form of government
>I have no idea what "communism" is
Communism is a stateless society where every man governs himself, i.e. no government. It is the dream of every anarchist and corporation.

OVER HERE FUCKFACE
I dare you to try and argue against this, dumb faggot

Clinton got 48.2% of the vote. That's far from the majority. In fact, the majority of the voters didn't want her.

>That's literally not how it works. You can't be a NEET in a proper communist state.

Except nearly every time "communism" has been implemented it involved tons and tons of gibs for the poor and unemployed to the point that the economy collapsed since they never gave back anything. See many ex-USSR satellite states and Venezuela as two obvious examples.

inb4 HURR DURR THAT WASN'T REAL COMMUNISM. Good luck convincing the poor to vote in your communist utopia if you aren't going to give them tons of free shit.

the electoral college was part of the compromise to find a fair way to elect. if there are any better alternatives besides mob rule, we're all ears.

And women would have 100% decide the outcome if they voted. Should we not allow women to vote, too?

There are better reasons but I truly feel like not everyone deserves a vote anyway (not an argument). You should have to at least pass some test to show you understand the policies of the running candidates before being able to vote, as well as show proof that you are in fact a US citizen and who you claim to be. Is that too tyrannical?

a.pomf.cat/lymmgn.webm