How is the electoral college NOT retarded?

Before the name-calling begins, I voted for Trump and I'm glad Trump won. I just can't wrap my head around why the electoral college is useful. The usual argument is:
>The more populated states will dictate the course of the elections!
So fucking what? It doesn't matter if more people are taking up less space. They're still more people. If the majority votes for someone, it doesn't matter how they're distributed; they're still the majority. Are you implying that a person in Iowa's vote is more important than someone in Jew York? Why? This is the same kind of nigger-tier logic leftists use when arguing for affirmative action.
>muh muh minorities
Can anyone please explain to me how the electoral college is useful?

Other urls found in this thread:

metrocosm.com/us-immigration-history-map.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because the States originally had the full autonomy of sovereign states. The only way they would give that up, and accept that the Federal government would have the right to force them to accept decisions they disagreed with, is if the Federal government guaranteed them a minimum level of influence over the government irrespective of population.

The electoral college helps stop elections from being won by just California and new york (total libtard hellholes) and helps smaller states in the election become more relevant.(see the rust belt)

A handful of cities shouldn't get to decide the fate of the country

It prevents major cities from controlling the entire country politically just like the founding fathers intended.

Alright, that's the best answer I've heard so far.

Yeah I get that but why does it actually matter? If there's more people in those states then it's the will of the majority, plain and simple.

Its fucking retarded and always has been.

But why? If that's where the majority of the people are, then who the fuck cares? If the majority of the country wants something, isn't that what should happen?

Consider 50 states each with a distinct set of interests to represent, not just one big mass of people.

>A majority of voters shouldn't get to decide the fate of the country
Are you stupid son?

The European Union also has an electoral college system.

Countries like Malta have a way more higher influence per capita, than Germany.

It happens when you have different states joining together. The small ones don#t want to get overwhelmed.

The United States is a union of sem-autonomous states as implied by the fucking name United States.

in order to get the states to agree to a union the smaller ones wanted some concessions to make sure they still had a voice. This allows for a union of states, or as some might call it United States

basically it's the foundation of your country

Because the founding fathers recognized that societies in a common geographic area all tend to think alike and have similar interests and that it was more important that the federal government serve the majority of societies rather than the majority of people because the interests of one specific group within the country should not be able to dominate all of the other groups in the country solely because it has more people within it.

Trump won 70% of counties.

However, the 30% of counties that Clinton won, had 70% of the population.

Anyone saying "I don't want rural areas to be dominated by cities" or "2 people in the city shouldn't get to decide what's best for the 1 person in the country" is just actually saying "I want rural areas to dominate the cities." "1 person in the country should get to decide what's best for 2 people in the city."

Even Trump bitched about the system for years until it got him elected, then he loved it.

The biggest issue for the rust belt states, who decided the election, was the promise of fixing our trade deals and bringing back manufacturing jobs. Their livelihoods were at stake. It isn't right for a bunch of latte-sipping faggots in NYC and LA to have the power to make them irrelevant and strip them of their voting power.

It's not. We should get rid of it.

...

>Be me
>California guy
>I don't need guns
>Vote to make all guns illegal, because guns are bad!
>Also dislike animal cruelty
>Make hunting illegal to protect the animals even though I live in a city, where there's only animals in captivity.
Meanwhile in the central states
>Be me.
>Farmer
>Have bigass farm that grows food for the nation
>Fucking hogs are everywhere.
>Can't use a gun because Califags made them illegal
>Can't hunt them with a spear because Califuckheads made hunting illegal
>Entire farm is destroyed by the hogs
>Everyone in the US starves in a year

States elect the President. If you turned it into a straight popular vote you take away the states' right to elect the President in their way which violates the 10th Amendment.

Because states can influence their people in particular ways to sway votes, also it means that presidental elects only have to visit the largest cities.

Evectively making smaller states and cities irrelevant if you can sway say, California.

Why is he stupid? You're the one making a personal attack on your opponent lacking any sort of compelling, original, articulate argument. You're stupid.

Why should Calif alone get to decide every election? Why is a system that allowed a "community organizer" from Chicago to win twice suddenly the worst thing that ever happened to democracy just because you lost once?

>Guys, this was the political situation more than 200 years ago, therefore we should keep things exactly the same for all time!

The U.S. is the only country in the world that people say should try to act politically like it did 200 years ago.

>So fucking what? It doesn't matter if more people are taking up less space. They're still more people.
So if Russia or China has the most people, they should get to decide what the world does? We are literally a collection of STATES, that is independent governments.

It is why the Senate exists, where each state gets 2 votes regardless of population. Shit, this is like basic civics. Having a bigger population doesn't mean you get to be authoritarian assholes and shove your bullshit down everyone else's throats. It also means that the President needs to not just represent the areas with the most people every fucking term.

>Are you implying that a person in Iowa's vote is more important than someone in Jew York?
no, they are worth the same and thats the point. America never was a pure democracy. America is a representative republic. Always has been.

>Before the name-calling begins, I voted for Trump
No you didn't

>So fucking what

Because it is the united states of america not the united states of california and new york. We are more life fifty countries than we are one unified nation and the way we choose our president and the great compromise reflect that fact.

Get bent you pseudo-intellectually faggot

You'll note that this country never had any sort of major economic disaster until we abandoned the concepts that founded the country to begin with

>I want California and Jew York to rule the country!

Do you want rebellion user? Cause that's how you get rebellion

>System that allowed Obama to be voted: YAY!
>Same system that allowed Trump to be voted: sob bleat whine

Because the US has been a democracy that entire time unlike literally any other country. Ofcourse they wouldn't want to revert back to a shitty monarchy, but why not take pride and proud of your perfect republic?

Majority of people in cities are faggots and non white

>OP utterly BTFO'd.
How will he ever recover?

The whole purpose of it is to not allow the big urban states to dominate the little rural states. If we didn't have the electoral college, no one would bother to visit the small towns in Iowa and listen to their interests. Everyone would just focus on the cities

>Why should Calif alone get to decide every election?

Because your logic for taking away people's voting power works all the way down the chain.

>My state has fewer people, so my vote should count more! Why should big states dominate?
>My county has feweer people than yours though, so my vote should count more than your vote! Why should big counties dominate?
>Oh yeah, well my zip code has fewer people than either of you, so my vote shold be worth the most! Why should big zip codes dominate?
>Oh yeah? Well you live in an apartment building, so my house has fewer people, therefore my vote should count more than you! Why should big buildings dominate?
>Well, my hole in the ground has fewer people than your 4 person home, so my vote should count the most! Why should large rooms dominate?
>Well, my chair sits fewer people than your couch. Why should people sitting on the larger furniture dominate?

...

basically thats the only answer OP
federalism is bad, I know you are busy masturbating becuase trump won, but both he and hitlery are shit.

lets be real for a second, the biggest problem in america is that it's so big that no one can agree and move forward, but we're so federalist that it's the only thing the public cares about affecting. the whole system of government we are using now is broken to the core becuase it was never what america wanted in the first place, it was what we settled on so our military wouldn't be so shit it couldn't protect the nations interests.

So instead, no one bothers to visit anyone except in swing areas. Brilliant.

Now, and even tinier sliver of the population is in control.

This is a disingenuous misreading of the argument.
The person you were replying to was arguing that the smaller states should have some influence at all, not that they should have more. And this influence is reflected in the number of electoral votes that each state is apportioned.

Without the electoral college our suburban and rural areas would be neglected, turning 90% of the US into a 3rd world country. We would look like Russia... Beautiful cities with totally cucked rural parts.

Switching to popular vote would be worse desu. We need a PR system

States don't vote. People do.

A person in Wyoming gets the equivalent of 3 California votes.

I am an immigrant that voted Bernie, then Trump.
The electoral system is in place because we have a Federal system, means California, and all states have Constitutions and their own laws.
Hierarchy comes as US Constitution, State Constitution (aka State Law), then County law, then City laws ordinances.
People should do the immigration USCIS citizenship test to learn about their own country.

Smaller states have waaayyy more influence though, not just some. Apart from their electoral votes being worth more based on population, even the smallest states get 2 senators.

It was created to prevent large population centers from forcing their will on states with smaller populations. Now fuck off Hillary lost which is good because I didnt have to drive to Washington and kill the criminal bitch myself.

How can you possibly think it's fair that cities (5% of land mass) gets to decide how the rest of the country is run? Areas of high concentrations of population typically vote for one party over the other. If there was no electoral college, candidates would only cater to the interests of city-minded citizens and fuck the rest.

This voting system isn't required for a federal system though.

Sup

Why would small states be part of the union if they get fucked sideways all the time by big states?

No that would be mob rule and lead to bad things. If all your friends were comitting suiside would it be a good idea to join them?

It limits democracy
And since democracy is cancer , this is a good thing

>The U.S. is the only country in the world that people say should try to act politically like it did 200 years ago.
and that's why some countries still have a royal family for example.

exactly

Why should the tiny minority of citizens in rural areas get to decide how the rest of the people are governed?

....and fat illegal Rosa in California gets the equivalent of one American vote

>we're not falling for your liberal tricks

they don't

It is so the stupids don't ruin the country. You idiot.

Doesn't it make sense to cater to the majority of the population? That's the whole point of democracy, the fact they occupy less of the land mass is a moot point since 90% of the country is empty anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I really do think that democracy is flawed, but this system just shifts it away, it doesn't fix the problem.

then states can vote to change the constitution!

go back to rebbit you fucking faggot

Because if laws are made to only benefit people living in big cities nobody will be doing the jobs that make your parasitic life possible. You can't grow food in concrete jungle

If you look across the world, you find a similar system in very many countries, Norway included.

sage this shit

That's one hell of a straw man.

This is mob rule anyway though, just by a different mob.

Here's your redpill: yes it is to save "muh rural and suburban retards" from city rule

However, consider the agricultural states. Imagine the amount of arable land needed to feed those in the cities.

Now consider taking away the voting rights of the citizens of those states who have sacrificed infrastructure projects only to allow the farmers to grow the food needed to sustain our city population.

That doesn't work, and that's your redpill

>half of the US population lives in these counties

So half of the us population shouldn't get their fair say in government? Fuck off. We have mechanisms to deal with mob rule, it's called a republic. Civics 101. You're welcome.

Why would small counties want to be a part of their state if they get fucked sideways all the time by big counties?

Why would small cities want to be a part of their county if they get fucked sideways all the time by big cities?

Why would small neighborhoods want to be part of their city if they get fucked sideways all the time by big neighborhoods?

Why would small city blocks want to be part of their neighborhoods if they get fucked sideways all the time by big city blocks?

Why would small buildings want to be part of their city block if they get fucked sideways all the time by big buildings?

The logic applies all the way down, but no one ever demands we chop the rest of the country up the same way, even though we have county offices, and city offices, and neighborhood officials, etc.

>States don't vote. People do.
The states do vote under our system, but they also vote the way their people tell them to vote.

>A person in Wyoming gets the equivalent of 3 California votes.
Yes, but that only really hurts the losing side in California. The winning side gets far more votes from California than any other state.

Smaller states electoral votes are worth less because they have a smaller population, you numbskull. Not only that, the larger states get far more Representatives in the House of Representatives. The Senate is there to make sure the larger states don't get out of control in the legislature.

?

What's best for a large city isn't best for farmers and others in bumfuck USA. /thread

Shure if your friends are doing it you may as well try suiside maybe you will like it.

*infrastucture projects such as apartments and section 8

Like many things done on a national scale, to organize various competing and conflicting groups/ideology in a manner that will benefit the nation, you must strike a deal.

There is no point in being a part of something that is only detrimental to you. Thats why Brexit happened and why the EU will break up. If there was no electoral college there would be no U.S.A, only S.A

Farmers are also important in supplying the food necessary to sustain population

It's funny because you guys don't actually care about the constitution. You would flip your shit if liberal states demanded they get to count their illegal immigrants for voting purposes and determining representatives under a return to the 3/5ths compromise. After all, they are "other persons"

It is bad, hence Trump's past comments about it.
But it doesn't change the fact that the reasons you just stated are just as retarded.

It DOES matter if larger states becomes the only relevant states in an election. Which does not fit the american system at all. Yes, the EC system is bad. But so would the popular vote be, just look at the statistics how the southern states has turned from complete red states to somewhat red states.. thanks to the immigrants.
The way to go and to make it somewhat more legit, is to remove the "winner takes it all"-bullshit.

>The cities should dictate the desires of the rural
Literally nowhere in the world operates on a direct democracy basis because pure majority rule is absolutely fucking retarded.

Also I would love to see the day when the most populated counties in texas, oklahoma, kansas, arkansas, georgia, and alabama all voted the same as California and New York. That would be a fucking miracle.

> My state has fewer people, so my vote should count more

but... no one in this thread ever implied any logic like that user. small states don't even dominate. depending on the chronological order of elections, they're still as irrelevant as it gets. the electoral college protects them. You still dwarf a 6 vote state with your 55- all of which always go to the democratic candidate regardless of how large the republican minority is.

you didn't actually answer my question about California, and ignored the rest of my post.

> My county has feweer people than yours though, so my vote should count more than your vote!

But that's not how the UN security council works at all, population size is irrelevant there. this nor any of your other examples make any sense. You're just being childish, contrarian, intentionally obtuse, and anti-strawman.

They're worth more weighted by population you idiot. They siphon of votes from states like California and even Texas.

>California, 700,000 people per electoral vote
>Wyoming, 166,000 people per electoral vote

A vote in Wyoming is worth more than one in California nationally.

>Spotted Eagle

>So fucking what? It doesn't matter if more people are taking up less space. They're still more people.
The USA is a republic. Don't like it? Move to a Euro-cuck country.

>Run for president
>Pander to all the liberals in massive cities
>Get elected every time
>Shit on everyone who doesn't live in a big city because they're politically irrelevant to you
>Implement shit leftist policies so you can get reelected
>Approval rates skyrocket because liberals only care about their shit ideology and not reality
>Anyone outside city has to live in shit dystopia they didn't want and essentially have 0 representation.

There is a great reason why 100% of the voting power should not be given to exclusively liberals and city scum. This is a huge ass, diverse country with an ass ton of different cultures, economies, and needs. A president needs to appeal to all of them, not just the one with the highest population.

*Faith Spotted Eagle
Bigot

Because the president is a representative of the states to the world, not a representative of the people, which is the job of congress

Sage this bullshit

what are you talking about?

The intention isn't the "will of the majority" it's "representation of interests".

Interests of city folk and country folk are inherently divergent. Cities are inherently more populated than countrysides. Thus giving more influence to the countryside ensures that the interests of the countryside are represented.

majority rule is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner

>Run for president
>Pander to all the unemployed people in swing states in the rust belt
>Get elected every time
>Shit on everyone who doesn't live in a swing state because they're politically irrelevant to you
>Implement shit protectionist policies so you can get reelected
>Approval rates skyrocket because rust belters only care about their shit ideology and not reality
>Anyone outside rust belt has to live in shit dystopia they didn't want and essentially have 0 representation.

I consider my dog an "other person" and my dog was born in the United States

My dog has more of a right to vote than an illegal invader

But you have a shot to win like 3 electoral college votes by voting in Wyoming whereas Californians have a shot for 55 fucking votes.

You have to love these shill tactics.

Pretending to be a "racist conservative", then >inb4ing all the valid arguments supporting the electoral college, then arguing for something that only benefits liberals while still pretending he's not a shill/libtard.

People in cities know about life in cities, and nothing else. Myopic shitheads, subjected to
the densest propaganda, are not the people
who should be deciding things for the whole country.

The issue is, we are not all the same, my state is superior to your state and if you want us to cooperate with you, contribute tax dollars, so on so forth and not secede, you will make my vote matter. Doesn't matter that you have a bigger pop when your population is composed of limp wristed faggots and pussified man children. Fuck off

Gerrymandering plain and simple

this example makes sense until you realize California is the largest source of dairy farms in the country

That doesn't change the fact that larger states have more electoral votes. If we gave them even more to account for their larger populations, this literally would be a dictatorship of California, Texas, New York and Florida. 4 states ruling over 46 other states. But that's okay, it's "Democracy," right?

"reality" in liberal states?....more free shit

>muh elections

you are not even a nation you dumb cunt

metrocosm.com/us-immigration-history-map.html

Should probably point out if no one else has, that even California and New York don't vote as a block. If 50 million people live in a state and 51% vote one way and 49% the other, the winner still gets all the electoral votes.

Also, it renders one states ability to defraud the process less worth the risk.