Wins by 3,000,000 votes

>wins by 3,000,000 votes
>isn't President

Other urls found in this thread:

270towin.com/custom-maps/population-based-electoral-votes
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes, the electoral college. Designed specifically to prevent giant population states from dominating elections.

Reminder that I can go to the United States at any point and vote if I wish to do so.

I'm a fucking leaf and even I know you're retarded

>states rights win.

That mean's she didn't win, doesn't it?

If Clinton had won with reversed results, libfags wouldn't ever stop praising the electoral college.

>wins a broad range of states
>resonates with all kinds of white people
>rightfully becomes president because brown people don't matter

Praise the lord

>wins

I think you mean loses with 3,000,000 more votes, that doesn't make one a winner in a republican election.

She's a child-eating bitch tho.

>wins
Sage

>scores more goals
>doesn't win the league

This is the closest analogy I can find to express how stupid this argument is.

>1 post by this ID

>Campaigns to win an election that is not determined by popular votes
>gets more votes

>2092 AD
>Urbanization is nearly complete
>800 million people vote in 3 state for Bernie Sanders IV
>252 people in the 47 other states vote for Donald Trump's cryogentically frozen genitals
>Genitals become president

/thread

A scrotum of a patriot is worth more than the whole of a Communist.

she beat obama too and lost the primary in 2008 face it op shes an eternal loser

The Falcons were winning for 99% of the game and they didn't win.

if he's so patriotic then why does he hire foreign workers and produce goods in foreign countries?

u mean
>loses by 3,000,000 votes

>if he's so patriotic then why does he hire foreign workers and produce goods in foreign countries?

Because he had to compete against fellow businesses doing the same thing. Bill Clinton laid out these new regulations. Trump wants to stop them.

The Falcons won the popular vote, too.

They the real super bowl champs because we wanted them to win more.

>Massive voter fraud
>Wins

GTFO CTR

illegal votes*

i dont even like clinton but at least she could speak in complete sentences

i thought it was like a choice between drinking watered down scotch or piss with bits of aborted fetus

Syphons power of 30 kids and 2 trauma births from a fire. Power only lasts 10 years.

>wins
nope

>the majority shouldn't rule

yeah, black people should have more power over white people because they're a minority, right?

20 million illegals in the country, 5 million vote.

>lost by 2 million votes, not our president.

>receives only 48.0% of the vote
>declared winner of the popular vote anyway
>didn't have a runoff with only Trump in a second round for the popular vote

if she was so close to a win why didn't she even challenge the results?

>Neither side wins a majority in popular vote
>Popular vote is irrelevant anyways
>Trump dominates electoral college
>Electoral College is the real metric of who wins
>Trump wins

What's the problem here exactly?

Actually that's wrong. If you win a large state by a couple of votes, you win more easily. That's how Trump won.
1. Hillary did not receive the majority of the vote.
2. The states Trump won comprise the majority of all people.

>Twice

>>wins by 3,000,000 votes
>wins

That's where you're wrong.

filename

serious question, how do ilegals vote?
in my country you need to provide ID and they rigurously check it before you are allowed to vote.
how would an illegal immigrant, literally an indocumented person, vote?

yeah. hillary is the one providing aborted fetuses. child murderer.

Yes, the majority shouldn't rule. Not directly. This is why America has been so stable historically (barring one civil war 150 years ago). The system is specifically design so that the masses must act through representatives, because the masses are very fickle and are ignorant as a whole.

And Trump is called a populist.

>score more runs
>lose the series
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

1488

I'm afraid all claims of the popular vote may be safely ignored until voter fraud is completely prevented. Since the Democrats are unwilling to enforce their own voting laws, we have no reason to indulge them.

How does it feel, Madame President, to worship at the feet of men?

>register online in a state that doesn't give a fuck about whether you're actually an US citizen or not
>go to your voting station, give your name and vote

id is racist

>>wins by 3,000,000 votes
>>isn't President
>
>Child trafficker, arms trafficker, money launderer, extortionist, Satanist, pedophile, murderer, insert long list of other crimes here
>>isn't President

It doesn't matter how much more you have if getting more isn't the objective of the game.

She got completely btfo in the electoral college, there was nothing to challenge. The only reason Gore challenged the 2000 election was because Bush won by one state and that state was one through a very small margin whose ballot was confusing and cast doubt on who actually won.

In California you could just vote online without any ID. I live in Wisconsin but for shits I voted for Hillary at least 10 times in CA because I knew she would take that state anyway

One of my friends set up a script that would vote for her once every couple minutes

California has no ID checks. It could take effort, but voting stations usually have a list of names they check off, you could give a random name and get the ballot.

Look up obituaries and use their names as well.

Voter turnout is low too, pretty sure that is out of registered voters, so you have a good chance.

I'm finding this hard to believe.
how could a system be so faulty?
you mean than literally anyone can go and vote as many times as they want by just giving a different name?

that can't be real.

That's not how it works, dumbass, Bernie would still win. Representatives are based upon population.

Because in the US it is written into the Constitution that the individual states have the right to dictate how elections operate and are conducted in their own state. A state which doesn't care (or maybe even wants) illegals to vote because it would favor their party create lax regulations and enforcement so that voting fraud is not that hard to accomplish. Other states created very stringent rules and enforcement. It can be a mess.

Democrats use this system to keep control in their state and Republicans don't care enough to take action against it because it's in a hopelessly blue state.

and this is why popular vote means nothing, he's not even wrong he could literally hop on a plane and vote in california the same day.

the system is there on purpose fellow white man, its kept in place by democrats who use the large illegal immigrant population to sustain themselves.

Change the file name next time you shill faggot.

Everyone STOP replying to CREW THREADS!

SAGE

>I'm finding this hard to believe.

It's real because states dictate their own voting laws. Voting fraud has always been an issue here, back in the day parties would pay immigrants to go vote, vote multiple times, and have dead people vote. This is a good reason why we have the electoral college as it can make fraud less effective.

>doesn't even lose one pawn
>still not checkers champion

Most states do a fairly alright job at trying to prevent voter fraud as much as possible. It's just that California is completely retarded and basically invites fraudulent activity which is how my friend and I were able to get so many fake votes into CA

In 4 years we're going to set up a little server farm and fill CA with as much republican votes instead of dem votes

Actually you are wrong. He is right. Don't preach to me about our own elections Kraut.

The point of the electoral college is to Weigh land area more heavily than Population.

Look at the ratio of population to electoral votes.
The higher you go the more votes there are per each electorate.
IE cali 55x the pop of Wisconsin but only 18x the electors

Even Texas with the second most electors has a better ratio of votes to electors.

The whole point of this system is so Populous Industrialized cities can't rule over a larger disagreeing landmass.

1)Hillary did receive a majority of ballots, however they were from high population states with large cities. Trump won the majority of the country,

>wins
Stopped reading right there.

wtf I hate the US now

>it is written into the Constitution that the individual states have the right to dictate how elections operate and are conducted in their own state
Shit, for real? Could this prevent federal a voter ID law?

Then don't fucking reply and just sage

>Actually you are wrong. He is right. Don't preach to me about our own elections Kraut.
I can because you're a retard.
>The point of the electoral college is to Weigh land area more heavily than Population.
Not true at all. A small state like Vermont and even DC still receive the same amount of electoral votes despite having a smaller landmass and the same population as Wyoming.
>Look at the ratio of population to electoral votes.
The higher you go the more votes there are per each electorate.
IE cali 55x the pop of Wisconsin but only 18x the electors
What is Vermont, DC, Delaware, NH, Long Island, Hawaii, New Mexico and Nevada? All blue states with incredibly voting power, much greater than red states like Texas, Florida, PA and others. Vermont has about the same ratio to Texas as Wyoming has to California. Your argument is moot.
>Even Texas with the second most electors has a better ratio of votes to electors.
No it doesn't. It has 30 million people and receives 3,5 times less EV than Vermont.
>The whole point of this system is so Populous Industrialized cities can't rule over a larger disagreeing landmass.
If you have a state with 50% of the population it also has about 50% of the EV, retard.
>1)Hillary did receive a majority of ballots, however they were from high population states with large cities. Trump won the majority of the country,
She did not win the majority of the ballots, only 48.0 fucking %. What is up with this meme of her winning the majority of the vote? Are you literally retarded?

why are differing opinions silenced here

No it doesn't say that. It just says "the state will select their electors"

In the founders fathers system the people didn't even vote for the president. the peoples power were in the congress.
People would just vote in electors and said electors would vote for whomever they want. This was meant to be common man stupidity buffer. However now you vote for electors based on candidate.

>>wins by 3,000,000 votes
>>isn't President
Get rekt faggit

It's not even an Amendment, it's part of the main constitution proper. Article 2 Subsection 2 of the Constitution reads:

> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The key phrase here is "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". State Legislatures dictate the rules of elections within their states.

>don't reply
>sage

The DNC doesn't work by popular vote either with their Super Delegates.

There is a bit of room for legal fuckery, but the states more or less have control of how they conduct elections in their states and it makes election reform difficult. There has been reform in the past though, it's just really hard to do.

She lost by 38 votes.

that'll work, ahmed

who give afuck you dumb bitch

I guess this is the inbred Muslims. Unable to apply broader concepts.

>A small state like Vermont and dc
Has its own land area the point is that a populous state can't overrule a bunch of low pop states.

Lets do some basic math you inbred retard You obviously know very little about our election system silly Kraut
Cali 55
Texas 38
Texas pop 26.96M
Cali pop 38.8m
55/38.8=1.417
38/26.96=1.409
Only a little better but the difference is much much more pronounced in lower pop states
Washington 11 EV
Pop 7m
11/7=1.57
Connecticut 7 EV
pop 3.6M
7/3.6=1.9
Lowest pop state
Wyoming 3 ev
.56M
3/.56=5.3

Understand now kraut. The lower the population of the state the more value each vote has. That is why getting more states and a larger land area is weighted more heavily than population.

Literally no one from any city voted for Bernie. Only rural and suburban retards.

Vermont 3/0.626 = 4.788 only slightly lower than Wyoming.

And 3 point states basically don't really matter on a large scale because if you would remove them, both parties would still have about the same results since Dems control the NE (VT, NH, ME, LI, DE, DC) and Republicans the Northern states (Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska).

>That is why getting more states and a larger land area is weighted more heavily than population.
Vermont has one of the highest voting powers despite having a small land mass. Of course a retard like you wouldn't understand that.

>why aren't retarded peoples opinions valued here? are we no longer applying the progressive stack?

Jesus Christ you are a Nitpicking retard. You missed the whole Idea. I guess this is Germans for you. Make everything they need to win WW2 but misuse everything.

The point is that a a state with less population is weighed more heavily than a state with greater population. Thus by winning a larger number of states (IE LAND AREA YOU STUPID KRAUT) You can offset a larger population(cali/NY)

I never said that Land area gives you more votes. I said that our elections weigh winning land area(IE STATES RETARD) over winning a few populous states.

>Jesus Christ you are a Nitpicking retard. You missed the whole Idea. I guess this is Germans for you. Make everything they need to win WW2 but misuse everything.
Wow what a smart retort. You must have been the smartest guy back in school.
>The point is that a a state with less population is weighed more heavily than a state with greater population.
It happens on both sides and is only because of the 3 EC each state automatically gets for existing. That is the rule.
>Thus by winning a larger number of states (IE LAND AREA YOU STUPID KRAUT) You can offset a larger population(cali/NY)
Not enough to significantly matter. Winning just 13 big states is enough to win the election and those don't comprise the majority of the landmass.
>I said that our elections weigh winning land area(IE STATES RETARD) over winning a few populous states.
Not true, since winning states that contain the majority of the people translates into winning over 270 EV.

Too bad they don't give out participation trophies for coming in last place in the presidential election huh, CTR...

Electoral College:
>306 Trump
>232 Clinton
>Trump wins by 74 vote margin

The Republic chose him by a VERY wide margin.
Those who don't like it, can always leave.

Lots of countries want to take in Americans, I'm sure.
Lots of countries will better represent them, I'm sure.

270towin.com/custom-maps/population-based-electoral-votes

Also here a map based solely on population. And it still wouldn't make a difference.