The electoral college is an indefensible relic devoid of logic

The electoral college is a stupid approximation of the popular vote that's only defended when your side wins.

The problem with the electoral college in its current state is that it essentially screws around with percentages by dividing the whole into individual slices, and then uses the majority WITHIN each slice to approximate the majority of the whole. Here's a straightforward example of why this makes no sense:

One group of 100 people gets 10 votes; a different group of 50 people gets 5 votes. The group of 100 votes 51/49 one way. The group of 50 votes 45/5 the other way. The result is that 56 people win the vote against the other 94.

In the next twenty years, as the urban/rural split becomes greater, I anticipate there will be a presidential candidate who loses the popular vote by 3 million+ but wins the election on the back of slightly more support in major population centers.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/drumpf_dimwit_droogs.jpg/
youtu.be/_bVhuz9Ut38
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>hurr hurr
fuck off shareblue

So change the constitution you assmad faggot.
He played by the rules and won. Deal with it.

IT WAS HER TURN!!

WHY DIDN'T SHE WIN BY 50 POINTS, YOU MIGHT ASK?

just trying to communicate that the electoral college is a ridiculous system, and it's going to burn rural america really hard in the near future

Dude, this is old shitpost.

You need to do new shitposts.

Get with the times.

We are a Union of states, if certain states were to impose their will upon the others because of the importation of Democratic voters from foreign lands, What is the point in participating in a Union that serves foreign interests? The people who wrote it into Law seemed to forsee just exactly what theses leftists intended to do.

The electoral college is fine. It makes it to where smaller states aren't irrelevant. A popular vote would become an election coverage on just the large population centers.

Perhaps it could be modified a little bit to make it more fair, however. More partial electoral college votes.

The United States is a federal republic. It is SUPPOSED to slice the country into individual slices, because each state is a semi-sovereign entity. The state determines its own internal affairs. It deigns to have its will represented in national and foreign affairs. Therefore states are casting their collective vote for the federal executive.

The votes to population ratio is a compromise that was worked out and agreed upon to ensure that states received a fair degree of representation, and no state was too weak or too powerful

It is an extremely well thought out system

So you want to disenfranchise the entire midwest and rustbelt is what you're saying right? California, New York, Texas, and Florida should decide everything amiright?
>given your logic, explain why we shouldnt abolish the 2 Senators per state system as well
Also, you should know that electoral votes change with census results, so your scenario is impossible

cry more about it CTR

EIGHT YEARS

You lost. Get over it.

OP is a (you) hungry faggot
Deprive him of (You)s, and give them to me instead.

this is not a shitpost. i'm just here to point out the obvious and needless deficiencies in the system we use to elect the president. don't get mad at me in 2020 when trump wins the popular vote on the back of overwhelming support, but the whoever-the-fuck democrat wins the electoral college based on a slight advantage in the major states. It's a stupid system and it needs to be changed.

United States of America.
States.
It is not people of USA that are the voters, but people of Alabama, people of Texas, of New Hampshire, of Vermont. The people of the state vote within it - and by democratic majority - decide whom is supported by the state.

Electoral college exists to make the states the voters, instead of the people. Once the states vote within themselves, they put their support based on the will of their people. The reason for this is to keep USA a federation of states, and not a single state of itself.

You are the very definition of what is wrong with USA these days.

How about spreading the blue next time?

You know, instead of congragating to to sanctuary cities. But I'm sure you have realized that by now if Democrats haven't figured that out, they never will.

The electoral college protected the American people from Hillary. Seems to be a good thing.

ITT: SoCal should decide every political decision forever.

no, i want to enfranchise everybody. there are only 6 swing states that even matter under the electoral college system. if you vote in california or texas or wyoming your vote means jack shit.

k
just remember to sage kids

its a great system. the usa is a union of states not a homogenous bloc. the numbers just need to be set in a logical way

Rural Amerika has control of the food, water, heating gas and sanitation. Fuck off back to faggotopolis.

Sega

The electoral college isn't perfect but it does have some logic behind it. The electoral college does more to garauntee equal representation of both sides of the vote. The electoral college guarantees that large groups of similarly minded people in a small area, major urban areas for example, do not massively outweigh the smaller population areas of rural America. Under a purely popular vote system, the people of CA, TX, and NY could almost single-handedly decide the president if they voted similarly.

>dividing the whole into individual slices

>get rid of local governments
>get rid of states
>fed presides over all
>elect another president you don't like

Why do you keep hurting yourself.

>6 swing states
Trump swung traditionally blue States red that Hillary didn't even bother campaigning in. She lost as much because Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, States she assumed were locked in, voted Trump. Things change. California and New York are solidly blue now, but it's entirely within the realm of possibility that can change.

But how does the electoral college actually protect from this? I would argue that it has the capacity to do the exact opposite. If urban centers go 52/48 one way and rural areas go 75/25 the other, the electoral college makes it possible for the 52% of urban voters to decide the election.

You only need the biggest 11 states to win. If population trends continue (i.e. urbanization and increase in minorities), those 11 largest states are going to move left politically. Then you're in a situation where slim majorities in the 11 largest states offset large majorities in the smaller states. If you have a one person, one vote, national system, then those large majorities in the smaller states are accurately reflected in the election result. If you stick with the electoral college, though, then you could win the whole election based not on the mandate of a majority of Americans as a whole, but instead on slim majorities in the largest population centers.

>The electoral college is a stupid approximation of the popular vote
popular vote is literal garbage

personally I wish counties were allocated votes in a per-state implementation of the electoral college, and similar for town votes, by neighborhood

it should be EC all the way down

...

I'd argue they are. Electors are set by the number of Representatives a state has, which are based on population, plus the two for each Senator. States could also choose to portion their electors according to the popular vote. Only Maine chooses to do this. Likelihood of changing the Electoral College through a Constitutional Amendment is unlikely. But citizens could petition their state governments to proportion Electoral votes according to the popular vote. But no state has done this but Maine. And so it goes.

The most i would change it is make it so that each state takes its total electoral votes and splits it based off of which counties voted for whichever candidate they want.
it makes more peoples votes matter in hard left or right states.

>the fate of the nation should be controlled by only several massive counties
fuck off

>not knowing about the leaked hillary video where she blatantly says she wants to rig palestinian elections
>thinking hillary wouldn't want to rig US elections by packing masses of illegals into buses and sending them to vote
sort yourself out user

>durr hurr what is population density
>derpity-doo all of the US is represented by the EC even though the candidates only really give a fuck about the handful of swing states in any given election

If you manipulate Los Angeles and New York City alone you win the election in a popular vote. Which, if you aren't aware, is terrifyingly simple to do.

If we had a popular vote on whether or not saying nigger should be a crime in 2017, it would become a crime.

Plus imagine if you lived anywhere but a major city. Campaigns would be in two or three cities. Imagine how excluded you would feel. The federal government wouldn't even pretend to care about you at that point.

But traitoranon, we share a northern border with a country that is a perfect showcase of the buttfuck retardation that is a popular vote.

It's almost like the internet doesn't exist in your world. This isn't 1842--you don't have to ride by horse and carriage from town to town to campaign. We're at the stage where a candidate can address the entire country whenever he wants from his phone. Yet you think a candidate would be insane enough to target just two cities if we move to a popular vote? You're far better off manipulating the entire country via twitter.

>It makes it to where smaller states aren't irrelevant.
Not exactly.
The "winner take all" aspect means 51% of the vote in a handful of large states can win the election.
The only thing preventing this is the current division among the big states.
Cali and New York are solid blue, while Texas is red, and Florida is a swing state
But what if Texas went blue?
Let's say Ivanka runs in 2024, and one of Jimmy Carter's grandsons runs against her.
If Carter wins 51% of the vote in the top twelve states, and Ivanka wins 49% of those states, along with 100% of the vote in the other 38 states, Carter still wins, despite Ivanka winning both the popular vote, and 76% of the states.
By contrast, with a popular vote every single vote (which would never happen) in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, AND Ohio still isn't a majority.

If you believe Donald Trump can manipulate the entire country by tweeting then why do so many hate him?

Oops, wrong pic

>it's going to burn rural america really hard in the near future

you do realize that the system favors rural america, right?

>hurr durr reeeeeeeeeeeeeee
fuck off shareblue

Fuck off Shareblue

>It wasn't the last two elections though

If only my country had an electoral college

...

>indefensible
Sorry faggot but that's how our elections have operated for 200+ years

Hahahahahahahaha

I agree OP we really need to leave the vote up the the media consensus that would be much better for everyone especially since thinking outside of that consensus is just so dangerous to freedom!

fuck you liberal faggot, the American people are not going to let NY and California dictate the nation

>>It wasn't the last two elections though
Obama won both the popular vote and the EC both times.
Meanwhile, your party hasn't had a non-incumbent win the popular vote since 1980.
And only two such wins since the 1920's, unless you count Nixon's 43% "win" in 1968 when the dems split the ticket and ran two candidates.
Most people still voted Democrat though.

i don't think trump can manipulate the whole country by tweeting. i was just expanding on that guy saying you could win the popular vote by manipulating just new york and los angeles--if you can manipulate entire populations, why wouldn't you just manipulate all of america via the internet?

(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)(you)

if you don't want ny and cal to dictate the nation, you should change the electoral college before it's too late

Better than having just New York and California represent the whole country.

>you should change the electoral college before it's too late
why would it need to be changed? it's fine like it is

>expanding on that guy saying you could win the popular vote by manipulating just new york and los angeles
That's a myth.
New York and LA are only 4 percent of the US population.
See also:

should be done at the congressional district level like Maine and Nebraska instead of the state level since thats what an electoral vote actually represents

>The electoral college is WHAT JUST SAVED US FROM NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON COURTESY SATANIC SPIRIT COOKING BABY EATER HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN PODESTA AND THEIR CRACK TEAM OF PEDOPHILES

NO CHARGE FOR FTFY

>if you don't want ny and cal to dictate the nation, you should change the electoral college before it's too late
>prevent them from dictating the nation by removing the provision that keeps them from controlling the country with a strictly popular vote and gives smaller states equal representation

OP is an indefensible faggot devoid of logic

>it's a "Democrats appeal to extreme sectionalism and then cry because the federal government says they can't have slaves" episode

Weird how they keep doing this.

It is a very simple concept. If you don't want the largest states dictating the nation, then you're going to have to change how the electoral college operates very soon. Urbanization and immigration are going to give most large states a blue majority, even if it's a slight blue majority. The solid red in the rest of the country is then left without a voice, because you can then win the election by just winning the big states over and over again by small but safe majorities. 51% in each of the largest states is enough to win the whole thing even if you're getting 0% in all the others.

The states elect the President; not the people. This is because the UNITED STATES is a republic at the national level and not a democracy like it is at the state and local level.

The 17th Amendment in 1913 gave direct election to the senators. Before the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by the state legislator. The purpose of the senators was to represent the state and not the people of the state. Representing the people of the state/country was the House of Representative's function.

The reason for doing this was because each state was to be considered its own country. The states are united together to form the country, the UNITED States. This was also done to limit federal power.

Think about this as well: Each state gets 2 electoral votes by default regardless of population size. Each state also gets only 2 senators to represent the state.

The nation of the United States is a Republic.

Also, she lost. Fuck off!

Then if that's the case we need to push for what Maine is doing and have the electoral vote divided by congressional districts.

>collegiate system
>in place to avoid demagogue dimwits gaining power on the backs of the lowest common denominator
>instead works TO get said cancer elected

wew!, burgers...

Yeah, imagine how great it will be if the UN held a referendum with China and the UK both voting - without the electoral college of course. Thats your ideal future.

Reminder that democrats could have removed it in 2012.

Reminder that lazy nigger obama didnt do anything when most republicans wanted it gone in 2012.

Reminder that you're a faggot.

you don't make any sense

>posting this shit since before the election even happened
archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/drumpf_dimwit_droogs.jpg/

Pretty sad dude, also Trump won with college educated whites.

>Win 60% of states
>Lose election because someone won 51% of vote
Yeah, that makes more sense.

>founders decide that geography trumps an aribtrary vote that could have changed in a week
>devoid of logic
kys
>In the next twenty years, as the urban/rural split becomes greater, I anticipate there will be a presidential candidate who loses the popular vote by 3 million+ but wins the election on the back of slightly more support in major population centers.
I don't know how you could anticipate it. Are you preparing somehow? You expect it, I suppose. Anyway, it would only mean that the taxpayers are exercising more influence than the parasites.

what happens if its between?

How so?

Should we go by average iq instead? You seem concerned with intelligence :^)

The founders were smarter than you. Read about why it exists, maybe you'll eventually get "it"

If the electoral college didnt exist only democrats would win.

Was the electoral college bad when obama won TWICE? If you think so then you might be viewing it through biased lenses.

>screws around with percentages by dividing the whole into individual slices

those 'slices' are states which as a whole constitute the republic. If you don't slice up the whole and treat each state equally regardless of population what the fuck is the point of having states in the first place?

ITT idiots complain about something they don't understand

SAY IT WITH ME
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC NOT DEMOCRACY

didn't what you're predicting will happen happen last november?

>I anticipate there will be a presidential candidate who loses the popular vote by 3 million+ but wins the election on the back of slightly more support in major population centers.

You have this all bizarrely backwards.

It's the major population centers that have their vote curtailed, where a vote in Wyoming is worth roughly 3.6 times as much as a vote in California.

It's literally a 3/5ths rule for the 21st century.

This seems to be a difficult concept for a lot of people, so I'll repeat again as simply as I can.

You need to win just the 11 largest states in America to win the electoral college.

To win those 11 states, you need to win just over 50% of the vote in each individual state.

With those 11 states, you've won. You don't need to win a single vote in any other state in the union.

This creates a scenario where a slight majority in the largest states can trump every other vote in America.

BINGO!

It's amazing that a Britbro would have to explain to its former colony what the hell its gooberment is.

I still Kek at this.

we're not going to see a 51-49 vote across all of those states there is no perfect political system we know that

ok retard

America is a federation. If you didn't have a system like the electoral college you couldn't be a real federation.

population density = where all the filth go when they illegally come to america, or where the filth go when they cant make it on their own,.....
in other words.......our best and brightest

>With those 11 states, you've won. You don't need to win a single vote in any other state in the union.
Tell that to Hillary

>The problem with the electoral college in its current state is that it essentially screws around with percentages by dividing the whole into individual slices, and then uses the majority WITHIN each slice to approximate the majority of the whole. Here's a straightforward example of why this makes no sense:
That's the choice of the individual state legislatures, not the electoral college itself.
You want your state to implement proportional representation in the electoral college? Go bitch about it to your state assemblyman.

Reminder than Democrats want a Popular Vote because they lose with all other forms like Congressional Districts and Proportional Electoral Vote.

The majority of the population lives in the red counties though.

Allowing California to control the fate of an entire country is what's fucking retarded. That's as retarded as Germany controlling the fate of the EU.

You just described exactly why and what the electoral college is designed to do.

Just telling most Americans brought up under public schools that the Federal government was created by the States and is a servant of the States would blow their mind.
On that note the 17th amendment is one of the worst things to ever happen to America.
Also link related
youtu.be/_bVhuz9Ut38

>devoid of logic
Perfectly mirrors in the executive branch a state's representation in the legislative branch

>why can't three states single handedly decide the outcome of the election?

>Yet you think a candidate would be insane enough to target just two cities if we move to a popular vote?
Hillary was dumb enough to do that without having just the poplar vote lmao

If you think it works like this, you're a retard. The electoral college favors rural areas. Ever hear of Wyoming or Oklahoma.

Oh, and fuck yourself SharedBlue

If there was no electoral college, the candidates would just campaign in like 5 states with the largest electorate and ignore the wants and needs of every other state.

And it would just reward Democrats flooding every big city like SanFran with immigrants, knowing they will most likely vote for them. With the electoral college, at least there's no real incentive to do it since California is a lock anyway, and there's a fixed number of electoral votes assigned to it.

>shill refused to rally to change the system that guarenteed them over 100 votes from Cali, Washington, New York, and most of New England no matter where the democrat candidate campaigns
>only complaining after a loss