How to I counter this? I posted the image of election results by county in an effort to defend the electoral college

How to I counter this? I posted the image of election results by county in an effort to defend the electoral college.

Other urls found in this thread:

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf
historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's a Republic, not a direct democracy. NOT A DEMOCRACY. If we went the direct democracy route, California and New York would decide every election, every decision and every other state would be slaves to them.

The United States is a republic. Every state has its own government, culture, and values, and while we're all united under the same flag, each state is a little different. The electoral college protects the rights of less populous states that are nonetheless of vital importance to our country.

Iowa is only worth 6 electoral college votes, yet it is considered the "Breadbasket of America," producing the vast majority of our corn. Without the electoral college, it would be far less valuable, and thus it could see its interests trampled by those of city folk who by and large depend on the bounty and hard work of Iowa's people, while adding little of value to the lives of the average Iowan farmer.

That's just one example. The US isn't a direct democracy because the states are their own distinct units. If you think a state's value is solely contingent on the size of its population, you fundamentally miss the point of our republic.

I think they have it mixed up. It's made to each state/person has the same voting power as the others. Wyoming is just ONE state where the number is a little different for population to electoral votes. The ONE state which has like 3 electoral votes. BFD.

say "but i had more pieces in chess, so checkmate doesnt count!"

The way it should be. When you faggots start producing some GDP you can matter.

Republics are democratic governments.

Any government where the people get to vote on laws/representatives and elect officials is a democracy.

The US is a democracy, but not a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, the entire system is just a game of "whoever gets the most votes wins."

By the way, the DNC is less democratic than the RNC. The DNC has far more superdelegates than the RNC does, and superdelegates are undemocratic.

tell them only white male votes should count anyways.
checked

This is all true.

Enjoy starving.

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY
EACH STATE'S VOTE AND RESULT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE FINAL RESULT. THE WINNER OF THE STATE WINS THAT STATES ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES HOLY FUCK AAAAAAH

This, but lets not leave it at that, only rich property owners should be allowed to vote

>if you want federal elections then we need to put in federal election laws, until then each state gets to run its own elections and use its votes however it sees fit

"Rural slave owners"? Where the fuck did that come from? It was set up to prevent a fringe movement (the radical left) from influencing regional results. Which is exactly what it did. The system worked.

The Democrats were okay with the Electoral College when it helped them win. They also didn't go forward with a constitutional amendment back in 2009.

the best defense i that the electoral college is to protect the sovereignty of the states, we are not a democracy.

>direct democracy, the entire system is just a game of "whoever gets the most votes wins."
Thats not direct democracy. Direct democracy is a system which the people DIRECTLY decide, without representatives (congress/senate).

When the constitution was written the founding fathers didn't trust the everyday person to vote for the right person. I.E most people are fucking retarded. These people either failed, didn't pay attention or didn't do US government.

Thanks for saving me the time and effort.

The way it should be. When you faggots start producing some food you can matter.

This too.

Here's some other examples of this mentality playing out:

In baseball, you can get more hits, more strikeouts, and more home runs than the other team and still lose. Should we change that?

In football, the losing team can still have more yards gained. Should we change that?

In basketball, the losing team can sink more baskets (as in, put the ball in the hoop more times) but still lose if the other team got more 3-pointers. Should we change that?

In Poker, you can have a better hand and still lose if your opponent outbluffs you and you fold. Should we change that?

You can win more individual games and sets in a game of tennis and still lose a match.

You can take fewer strokes in a round of golf and still lose (added strokes for losing your ball, water hazards, etc).

You can be up 14-0 in a wrestling match and you still lose if you get pinned.

You can lose more battles, more equipment, and more soldiers and still win a war.

Direct democracies are overly simplistic.

The Founding Fathers set up a republic to avoid tyranny of the majority, i.e. overriding the rights of the minority.

That's stupid. The southern states had a large electoral vote count thanks to the 3/5ths clause, not because of the electoral college system.

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware wanted the electoral college system to protect their interests. And as the nation expanded, it allowed the rural, non-slaveowning Midwestern states to exercise their interests too, which often differed from the Southern plantations.

Besides, voting enfranchisement is mostly a state, and not a federal, responsibility, except for when the 14th amendment is infringed. This means that in a national popular vote system, states are more inclined to "stack the votes" by running lax and fraudulent elections instead of ensuring that each citizen gets one vote. At the worst level, this means importing people abroad to pad the vote count. It would quickly lead to a race to the bottom unless you want to infringe upon states rights and make a national popular vote a federal issue, which would be a giant clusterfuck since the US government would need to take over or build new DMVs.

tl;dr your friend is a stupid, ignorant faggot

use this... .its dangerous out there.

Urbanites should be grateful they get a vote at all. Rural areas feed them, and in return are bombarded with degeneracy and scorn.

show the numbers of people voting for trump and hillary without counting california.

You can't

Electoral college is indefensible
People in major population centers get shafted and the voters in a select number of swing states hold almost all the power.

Should have moved on to some other system after the 2000 fiasco

The Electoral College is how we elect the President.

Would they want to change the rules if one of their candidates won that way?

If people in populated areas don't like that they "get shafted" then they can move.

Major population centers also shaft anyone outside of them on a state level.

Do you think Chicago represents the rest of Illinois? Detroit for Michigan? Seattle for the rest of Washington?

It's total revisionist history to discredit the achievements of the founding fathers. Nevermind that the vast majority of the country was rural at the time (and still is); slave state or not.

Incorrect actually.

This idea is somehow being perpetuated when it is just wrong. Urban areas produce large amounts of food and are fully capable of feeding their own populations.

Rural areas are actually almost entirely subsidized by major economic centers. Roads, hospitals, clean air and water, sweater systems, electrical facilities, internet, schools, housing. Pretty much everything in rural areas is actually paid for by tax dollars that are generated in major population centers

Have a nice day welfare queen :^)

>they set it up this way to protect rural slave owners
a) Do you have proofs to back this claim?
b) The United States of America are that, states, not provinces, and just because a state has more people doesnt mean it matters more than the other state
c) If you lived in Wyoming, would you like to be always ignored because the people in Manhattan matter more than you

This.

Live just outside of cook county and we're solid republican. One county has been fucking up our state for the last 60 years

Because it gives rural and suburban retards a chance

>Urban areas produce large amounts of food and are fully capable of feeding their own populations.
Totally false.

And it's also more than just food. Most of the resources that cities actually need (fossil fuels, raw materials, etc.) all come from rural America.

See, that won't fly because they don't think it should be a republic. (They don't think it should be a democracy, either, but they won't admit that until you push the issue). They want one benevolent godhead figure to make everything cozy for them just like mommy used to; they can't comprehend or deal with the idea that we have to compromise between 300,000,000 different opinions.

Maybe New York and California should split off and form their own country then.

You don't have to defend shit, that's how the system works and how it's always worked. Everyone knew the rules going in. We're a collection of states that have different values and needs, as president, you should appeal to as many as possible. Clinton failed to do that, and she lost.

America is a confederation of states, not a single homogeneous country, and more federal issues are decided by votes by the states than by a vote by (representatives of) the people. The senate and the constitutional amendment process are infinitely more unfair to large states than the electoral college, and I don't see liberals whining about them.

Also, absolutely nothing in the history of the United States has ever been decided by a direct national popular vote.

Yeah, I worked on a farm in downtown Chicago. It was a little cramped, but definitely made more food than those farms or in the country with acres upon acres of land.

>direct democracy
>mob rule

>republic
>some people have less power

Huh. Almost seems like you cant have a perfect democracy??

...

...

with California removed he won the popular vote by about a million, its close but we can't let one state decided.

The electoral college had nothing to do with Slavery OP, in fact it was out in place because of newfound liberal hero Hamilton

Read this, federalist papers 68. Hamilton outlines why we need an electoral collage

avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

There is zero mention of slaves

also this

judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf

Which is horrible because then Ahmed can just breed millions of towel babies and push the election in favor of islam

1. Hillary didn't win the majority of the vote. In real democracies you'd get a secons round where Trump would've won thanks to Libertarians and McMullin voters.
2. Smaller states are equally split amongst both parties, see VT, DC, RI, HI, DE..
3. Smaller states virtually don't matter
4. In a popular contest Trump would've activated a lot of Republicans in big blue states but Clinton only a few Democrats in smaller red states, swing states already have maximum turnout
5. Stay salty

also incorrect
most of the resources that are gathered come from areas close to major population centers to make gathering and distribution easier since then the refining facilities don't have to be out in the middle of fucking nowhere

there are some exceptions to this like Alaskan or Balkan oil but things like natural gas primarily come from the applications on the east coast and are relatively close to major population areas

areas like Wyoming, Colorado and most of middle America actually contribute literally nothing and exist purely off the tax dollars generated by places like New York, California and Washington

King County in the state of Washington has around 25% of the population and 90% of the GDP of the state flows through it. Yes I think Seattle should be able to impose anything they fucking want on the rest of Washington
its not about geographic area dumbass its about number of people and the total value they contribute and major population centers have way more people and contribute way more

I don't see why some asshole living in the middle of the country should have a vote that counts for 9/6 of a vote made by someone living in California

each vote should count for 1(one) end of story

Electoral college is garbage and a relic of a bygone area when votes needed to be transported by horse and counted by hand

we can make a better system

>i.e.: the majority of your illegal immigrants, dindu high school dropouts, and bleeding heart hippies who populate New York and California

>rural slave owners
no it was to convince small states to join the union

theyre thinking of the 3/5s compromise.

Each vote does count as one vote. Each state has its own election.

All of this bitching about the electoral vote

just implement Alternative/Preferential Voting and 99% of the problems we have today go away

Tell them that Trump voters are a minority and they should be more tolerant of minorities.

>How to I counter this?
By telling whoever that faggot is to amend the Constitution. Until that person can do that, they can stay mad.

Now fuck off with your bait.

>I don't see why some asshole living in the middle of the country
It's fairly split amongst both parties and your vote still matters in big states, especially in big swing states. Smaller states have no effect on the election outcome.

then there would be no reason to give power and money to the federal gov't

and you would have no domestic food, natural resources, or volunteer military

Clinton voters are minorities themselves since the majority of the voters voted for another candidate.

Instead California and New York are slaves to rural bumfuck swing states.
The majority SHOULD be in charge.

The majority of states voted for Trump

>so my vote should count less because
Yes.

Tell them go back and read the ratification debates on the Constitution. The states that insisted on the electoral college were Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware.

Tell her stop getting her American history from Facebook memes.

>most of the resources that are gathered come from areas close to major population centers
How close is "close?" 20 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles?

Depending on the size of the major city in question, those distances can easily be considered rural areas with very low population densities.

>areas like Wyoming, Colorado and most of middle America actually contribute literally nothing and exist purely off the tax dollars generated by places like New York, California and Washington
First of all, there are plenty of red states with a larger GDP than Washington (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan), so I'm not sure why you brought up that example.

Secondly, while it is true that there are some rural midwest states that don't contribute much; there are other ones, ex. Iowa, that supply the majority of corn which is a major product that is used for a ton of goods. Writing off rural america as automatically useless is silly and shortsighted.

"Direct democracy is tyranny of the majority"

You don't have to say shit. It's over, Trump won. No argument will change this fact. Suck it down.

Without the electoral college, the midwest would secede.

California and NY do not make up even 20% of the population. Clinton only got 48.2% of the vote.

>implying a small group of people should be able to legally destroy the rest of the country so that they remain with the largest GDP
>dumb city kids vote for globalism
>rural area is destroyed and can never compete again.
Why are libtards so stupid? If you had your way america would be a giant empty land mass with a couple of cities with 50 million people crammed up into them.
Why do you want everyone to live like slaves

It was Virginia that was against the electoral college, and less populous free states like Delaware and Rhode Island that were for it. This bitch is wrong and you should call her out on it.

not true since then those elections are moved into the electoral system where the votes are then refined and some are worth more while some are worth less

Take George for example, he lives in California, he wanted Trump to win so he voted for him. Due to the fact that he happens to live in California though his vote counted for 0(zero) in the presidential election and his voice and opinion were not represented at all.

change it so that George is allowed to vote for who he wants and his vote will be counted and have meaning in the election he is voting in

something also needs to be done to deny states like Ohio and Iwoa from holding so much power over presidential elections

those electorals add up Germany
its also more a matter of principal
a guy in Montana votes and his state gets to cast 3 electoral votes even though they only have a population of around 1 million people, meanwhile a guy in New York votes but his vote only translates into 29 electoral votes even though the state has population of 19 million


you can list Texas if you want as well it doesn't change the fact that rural areas are completely paid for by major population centers

you should also educate yourself on corn
its actually almost a useless product
farmers grow it simply because there is a substantial government subsidy on the production of corn and the only reason we use it so much is because people grow tons of it and the only reason we grow so much of it is because the government pays a subsidy on corn.

It's a self driving loop. Corn is easily replaceable and not nearly as important as you might think Iwoa is a subsidized welfare state full of welfare queen corn farmers and contributes very little

If you count brown peoples vote as 3/5, or women's as 0, Trump crushed the popular vote.

>The states that insisted on the electoral college were Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Coincidently the smallest states in the union

US = 50 States

they are loosely united, but they are essentially independent entitites. the election is 50 separate votes. you've got to win as many of the 50 as you can. Hillary won 20 of them.

20 out of 50. not good enough.

Produce your own beef and crops then.

And your own iron.

Dang. First time I've unironically said this really made me think.

>greenville blue
>not columbia, charleston, or myrtle beach

ok

I think we can all agree to get rid of first past the post / the two party system though, right? I want to vote for the Nazis and not be lashed to the cuckservatives.

This

The way fucking God intended

>you can list Texas if you want as well it doesn't change the fact that rural areas are completely paid for by major population centers
This is not true at all. Texas the nation's largest producer of beef and a huge chunk of beef in this country comes from Texas. Those cows are raised in rural areas all across the state and are very important to the economy.

>corn
>useless product
This is totally delusional. Corn subsidies aside, it is still a major food staple and corn oils and the like are used in tons of products. It's not easily replaceable at all.

The election isn't held at a federal level on election day. Each state has an election. Each vote counts as one vote to decide who the state will pledge delegates to. So far you've failed to provide any reason why those of us who do not live in California or love Hillary Clinton should want to amend the constitution and change our presidential election system.

>Dang. First time I've unironically said this really made me think.

Gotta look from different angles.

>Set up to protect rural slave owners.

Or you know she could read the founders own words as to why the electoral college exist.
Like fuck these people wrote everything down for this very reason
historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

I don't know why they're claiming Utah went more Democratic when McMuffin is the reason why Trump didn't carry every county.

Popular vote should win if we are electing a dictator. Or if the federal government had 90+% of the power in the country.

As it stands, the states (are supposed to) mostly govern themselves. Idaho doesn't live by the same rules as California.

We get a consensus across all states for president because the president only presides over matters that impact all states.

like I said
the only reason corn is so widely used is because we grow so fucking much of it and the only reason we grow so fucking much of it is because it is a stable crop that will always pay out a reliable sum because the government subsidizes it

tons of nations on earth get by without fucking corn and we could just as easily

because depending on where you live your vote doesn't actually matter
its not a matter of "loving Hillary Clinton" its more like
if you don't live in one of the following states: Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Ohio then you shouldn't even bother participating in the presidential elections because you don't count
the electoral college doesn't do the job it was meant to do and evenly spread power out between the states, instead it does the exact opposite and consolidates power into a small handful of states

you can throw Iowa in there as well

They don't listen to logic

The system should be judged on its outcomes. The electoral college made Trump president. Direct vote would have made Clinton president.

For this reason I support the electoral college.

Talk to them about Voltaire ( who all leftists seem to love despite the man being a hardcore monarchist ), Rousseau and Montesquieu.

Talk to them about the dangers of mob rule and tell them that not all votes should could equally because not all people are equally educated politically ( an undeniable truth, which is hard to swallow for the liberal lemming train ) while flexing your own political knowledge.

Debunk the entire idea of equality, as its demonstratably false, and down falls the pillar of their uneducated arguments.

You say:
That wasn't the primary reason for the electoral college, but maybe it was an effect. Label it how you want, the problem is with the electoral college. It's not even a bad idea to reform the electoral process in general. However that is no reason to refuse the trump presidency and rejecting trump is essentially the starting stage of civil war. To what end? overthrow trump and plunge the nation into chaos because whether you like it or not. Trump has a large support base. Find a way to organize your efforts, and force a shift for the NEXT election unless he gets impeached or worse. Complaining on social media in your circles and having a womens march (which nice turnout globally btw) is all nice and good but it lacked clear direction like always.

Find out ways to actually influence things. If it's truly half the population wants him gone? then consolidate the fucking voice. Half a country is really fucking loud, but rather everyone just fucking virtue signals that they're against this and then goes back to fucking instagram or whatever the fuck it is people do which serve no effective purpose but validates on what you already know and believe.

"You clearly have no understanding of the electoral college. It is a system to give states a voice and better protect state rights. Back in the day, the fed wasn't as powerful and couldn't force states to do half the shit they force them to do now. I bet you wish that was the case now considering Trump is in power. Too bad Democrats are the reason state rights hardly exist anymore."

I like how you completely ignored my point about beef. I'll consider that point conceded.

>the only reason corn is so widely used is because we grow so fucking much of it and the only reason we grow so fucking much of it is because it is a stable crop that will always pay out a reliable sum because the government subsidizes it

Again you're just demonstrating your ignorance. The government subsidizes corn, yes, but preciously because it's vital and important. As a crop, it is vitally important and no society can just easily throw a basic, staple crop out. In fact, corn is one of the most important crops worldwide for feeding people. Take corn out and a lot of people are going to starve.

Also, more you're clearly not aware that corn byproducts are also used in the productions of plastics, batteries, medication, and many other things. Those are not easily replaceable.

>if you don't live in one of the following states: Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Ohio then you shouldn't even bother participating in the presidential elections because you don't count
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all counted this election.

Small states have no reason to be in the Union without proper representation. Remind them what states actually are, and ask them if they would feel the same way if each state election was spaced out over time. Hillary beat Obama in the popular vote in 2008, but nobody has a problem with it because the elections for each state were held separately. They rightly see it as a minor detail.

Also point out that even if states had electors proportional to their actual population, Clinton would have lost just as badly.

That's blatantly false though. Your vote counts as much as anybody's who's ever voted for a losing candidate. It counted. There just weren't enough likeminded people. Also, our electoral map has changed drastically throughout our history. Just this election we watched multiple states flip parties for the first time in decades, but in 2012 you would've been telling Republicans in Pennsylvania that their vote didn't count for anything. Well, actually, you wouldn't have because a Democrat won that election and the electoral college isn't an issue when everything goes well for leftists.

>3 million illegals
It doesn't matter if the majority of the COUNTRY gets represented. It matters if the majority of STATES get represented. Because we live in the United STATES of America. Not the Federal State of America.

Fucking retard.

It's weird to me that libs are pushing for everything to be "equal" here when they're the ones also pushing for equitable treatment of minorities. Shit about how "fairness" is about everybody getting what they need in order to succeed rather than some fixed amount.

States with smaller populations and their own interests are minorities, essentially, so liberals ought to be defending the concept of the Electoral College as fiercely as possible.

What do the blue zone represent? And the gray?

praise!

First reply is irrelevant. Second reply doesn't understand it's the states that vote for the president, not the people, because this is a republic, not a democracy. She doesn't like that, she can move. She then goes on to commit the genetic fallacy - where the electoral college came from is irrelevant to its validity.
The electoral college was set up to mitigate foreign influence on elections... such as that of illegal immigrants who are allowed to vote.
Explain this, then called them both retarded and delete them.