I have an essay for school on electoral college. it has too be for and against. how to red pill?

i have an essay for school on electoral college. it has too be for and against. how to red pill?

Other urls found in this thread:

libertylawsite.org/2017/01/03/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If they're counting spelling and grammar, you've already failed.

For: The electoral college results this election
Against: The electoral college results prior to this election

there's always spell cheek and proof reading lass

lost

simply use the against arguments as a springboard for some really crazy idea, like pure mob rule, twist every against argument into an affirmative for mob rule. The implicit and explicit stance will create an association in the mind of the reader. The format should be slightly chaotic, not too noticeable, but perhaps careful leaps in logic, as if you don't really care about the EC but you do care about mob rule (or w/e).

The Affirmative for the EC should be well paced, insightful and preferably at least one argument in syllogism form, even if subtly. Its important to make sure you create a vacuum instead of trying to be persuasive, it has much more impact with the reader.

k, i have nothing done

Only feed your teacher/professor what they want to hear. Otherwise you'll piss them off and they'll give you poor marks.

Or if you don't give a fuck what marks you get, then just write about something you want to write about and not what they're telling you to.

>that nail paint
Femanon present?

Say that it is designed in order to balance out the wants and interests of area's of the country who haven't felt represented.

The only real benefit of a first past the post electoral system is that you can kick out the Government in a two party system (3 parties being literally retarded).

Most states are Republican. Most State Governors are Republican. Would having a Proportional system for President really be in the interest of representing the country as a whole?

Additionally, you can use the argument that the states which changed their vote from Democrat to Republican were for all intents and purposes Democrat states, which the Democrats failed miserably during their terms in office.
Argue that the CE was set up and designed exactly so that these states, which were so ill served by the Democrats who held them, felt motivated and valued in voting within their state as a means to get a different political faction into power, rather than the one which had failed them so abjectly.

Keep in mind that since your teacher is asking this question in the first place, if you annoy them they may just mark you down out of spite. I hear your education system is shit and that there is no such thing as doing an essay for practice, and all seem to be marked and recorded for grades.

For AND against? How does that work?

this

What exactly is the question or topic that has to be responded to?

this

Pussy or boipussy?

...

For: Prevents rural states/voters from being swamped by big coastal cities and allows everyone's voice to be heard equally.

Against: Clinton would have lost in '92 because no one got 50%, and in a runoff Perot/Bush voters would have voted for Bush.

>EC got Trump elected
>EC got Clinton elected
>muh popular vote

I was always told that the electoral college prevented a candidate from winning with 90% support in just one small region. It's more important that a candidate get a broad support across the whole country rather than win a simple majority. The result (supposedly) is that candidates try to cater to the whole country rather than one area.

A good example would be a candidate that screws over 1/3 of the country to enrich a different 1/3. He could get 100% votes in the gibmedat 1/3, plus 20% everywhere else and win the election.

...

For the electoral college, keeps one state like Commiefornia, from deciding the elections for the nation.

I'm for it because in 2020 it will drive all liberals to suicide

I'm against it because it wasn't enough to drive all liberals to suicide already

Just know that the founders were trying to avoid a democracy, because mob rule is evil.

this

f-f-ff-female?

Well howdy there madam and a tip of my fedora to you.

Hehehe call me bby

Quote Hoppe for 'em. Show how democracy is, by nature, a socialist ideology in that it hands ownership of the state to the public instead of its natural position in the hands of a private class of elites.

...

NEVER try to redpill normies. They are too far gone.
If you try, you'll probably get a shitty mark, no matter how good/logical your arguments.
Normies are not logical to begin with, and most become agressive when exposed to logic, otherwise everyone would be redpilled.

You redpill normies by presenting them with a situation in which "their guy" benefited from something they have been complaining about nonstop. You don't argue with them. If they detect the logical fallacy they are redeemable. If they don't it isn't worth your time.

Call it a litmus test for redpill compatibility.

Just use that salon pic where they defended it 100% before Obama got reelected and then trashed completely when Trump won.

You're saying it in a gay manner.

Say that it is a device to disable mega cities from dominating politics, thus empowering rural cultures and politics.

t. Kansan

Still, it's not something you do in an essay for school if you don't want to have a bunch of lefties going for your neck (probably teacher included -> bad mark)

If you want an A just write "Fuck Trump" a thousand times.
If you want to be honest then go on and tell how the ec has been defended by the left since it's inception until this latest cycle and even then all the way up to the day after the results.
Hell. Look up your own teacher's facebook. I'm sure they shared every single pro ec article that came out because they thought it would be 350+ for the democrats and they wanted a precedent to avoid mob rule.

Preempt arguments that it was created to protect slavery: libertylawsite.org/2017/01/03/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/

...

Oh, I agree. There's a time and place for everything.

When I was in school you just nod, smile, and regurgitate whatever talking points the instructor wants to hear. Check the box, get the grade, then get the hell out of there.

i gotta do this tonight, thanx ur all helping alot XD

Well that says that you only have to argue one side in the essay itself.

The electoral college is rooted in the American revolutionary mindset. Ideas like "tyranny of the majority" influenced the constitution and those that wrote it. That the individual has unalienable rights that no democratic majority should be able to take away.

Key notes:

The electoral college prevents domination of the smaller states by the larger states.

The electoral college system makes it so that even people/s with non-mainstream ideas can join the discussion and have their voice heard.

That the electoral college is far from flawless, but is the most viable system for maintaining the union. eg.: Spain has several national entities that exist inside the federal system. If Spain had the Electoral college, then the smaller national minorities wouldn't be quite so aggressive with their secession plans/push.

That not every state is equal: Some of the smaller states (I don't remember exactly, this was a good point someone else on Sup Forums made a few months ago) are much more relied upon to service the country. One state was responsible for the majority of the country's corn growth. The fact that they control so much resources vital to the existence of the country's population, while a great many city dwellers don't really do anything except generate fiat, the electoral college preserves the states that do the most actually measurable activity.

These are a few you could use (probably shouldn't use the last point in the same way I did, but you can think around it).

I'm actually curious about what direction you're going to with this user. Can we get a sneak peek of your rough draft or outline?

Post tits OP

Rule only applies to "femanon here" posts my maplenigger

it'll be a while

>Redpill

What?

Press the idea that states are independant, and the electoral college was negotiated as a fair comprimise that would allow states that are smaller, more easily divided, and less likely to be campaigned in for logistical reasons to have more of a voice. Point out some states only have 1/179th of the vote, and some of the laws the federal government passes causes adverse consequences for the states, I'd find an actual example. That as a union of states, the united states can only allow independant states to join the union if they're willing to give them a large enough voice, and that ultimately if you want the differance in what each vote is worth to be lesser, you should merge states, not decide it's now ok for some states to have even less than the tiny say they have now. Point out the low level of services rural states have despite this "unfair" representation, and all the wonderful services urban areas have, and ask if so called rural overrepresentation is really a problem? Talk about the benefits of paying more attention to rural areas. That ultimately it's the bigger states that dictate most policy, which is true, and the electoral college gives a voice to the little guy.

The electoral college not as needed as in the past due to advances in communication technology, which gives more rural areas more of a voice than they did when they literally might have never been visited in the past, and this is probably the biggest argument against it. Not MUH DEMOCRACY SHOULD COUNT EVERYBODIES VOTES FAIRLY which is an argument only retards use, because in a pure democracy where everybodies votes counted the same the rural states would get blown out. There are actually a lot of advantages hard to quickly quantify to having a lot of votes UNITED.

Also this effect

The electoral college artifically pushes the political power of every state closer together. This makes "tyranny of the majority" situations harder to pull off - which is a MAJOR flaw of democracy - which just isn't noticed because US politics is set up in a way that avoids it.

Say the alternative to the electoral college is candidates who can win elections without winning a single rural state, while under the current system both democrats and republicans need to win support in both rural areas and cities to have a hope of winning.

Well, good luck! Remember, you get a better grade if the teacher reads what they already agree with. Don't fuck it up by going full redpill. Get a good grade.

>Not fucking everything up with autism
This is Sup Forums user

You're right. When we get to the middle of threads there is actually some good conversation. This isn't