SHE. FUCKING. WON

drumftards btfo o wait...

7 more years

>in America the president isn't the one who recieve more votes from the country

...

Of course not retard. With the size of their country, the big cities alone would determine who wins leaving the small towns in between with no voice.

Yes that's their argument.

Doesn't make any sense though

It would allow for a tiny percentage of the country's landmass to determine the fate of the entire country because of 1 or 2 major cities. Pretty much all blue states are only blue because they have a disproportionately large urban population.

Look at pic related, should those areas speak for the entire country because they have most of the population?

FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK WHITE PEOPLE!!!

If you have 10 people and have an election, if someone recieve 7 votes then he won. Regardless of where they live.

More votes = more people want you
Is just math
In your system some votes are worth more than others

What you're proposing is mob rule. What happens in your system when you have three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner?

cmon leaf, stop trying to use logic on the roody poo

They eat what the majority say so.

That's democracy

>In your system some votes are worth more than others

It's called a Republic. That's not changing. Ever.

And this, folks, is why South America is a shit hole

Think of it as Britain ruling over its colonies in the US. They both vote equally, (yes I know that wasn't how it went down), but Britain has a higher population. Who should determine the laws for the production of tobacco?

The areas who make the popular vote democrat are already completely blue on a local stage. They are simply trying to apply what governs them to the 90+ percent of the country's landmass that doesn't want their policies.

It's not really a lack of logic on his part, though. It's more that America has a specialized system that most of the rest of the civilised world doesn't use in order to make concessions to the contingent of people not living on the coastal towns. In a like-for-like democratic vote, Trump lost. Hard. I just find you Americans lolworthy when you go in on Europe for being cucked but had you not had the Electoral College you would have elected THE SHITTIEST candidate in American history as president. I guess you should thank your lucky stars for it. Still, it's a stark indication that you just narrowly escaped another 8 years of Democrats fucking up your and by extension most of the civilised world's countries, since retarded post-modern American belief systems came from the new world and has jack fuck to do with us.

No, in our system some states votes are worth more then others.

That's called "democracy" The US has never been, nor is now a Democracy, it's a Republic that has slightly more complex rules than simple mob rule.

>Europe use the electoral system

>Representative republic.
>Democracy.
And they call Americans uneducated.

its funny how dems date Representative republic.

but the fact is if we was not a RR blacks and other groups would of bot BTFO 100s of years ago

hate not date*

States were made using rather arbitrary borders. Kansas City rests on the borders if two states for example. Some states are completely rural while others are urban and some are a mixture. Stop acting like this system is even close to rational.

thank you based leaf

We aren't a democracy though, we are a representative republic.

>implying democracy is always the best answer
That's why we have an electoral college that coordinates with the will of the majority but not necessarily so.

I also shouldn't have to point out that out of Trump and Hillary it's Hillary that had the record number of faithless electors.

And now you have small towns leaving the large cities with no voice.

Implying that a system based on arbitrary borders is better than plain democracy

Strawman, literally none of those posts said anything about the us being perfect or a rational system. It's a pretty odd and dysfunctional system, and state size and boundaries are a nightmare, but it's a functional system at least, better than mob rule.

Actually it makes perfect sense if you pull your head out of your ass.
The President of the united STATES is the person who receives the most votes from the STATES

You're going to have to argue why a system devoid of checks and balances is better than one with them, which is one of the primary principles of the founding fathers.

Otherwise, if you can't give a good answer (and trust me you can't), then take your cultural Marxism and go cry about the $0.05 you just lost out on.

Lest we forget.

You shitpost like a syrup slurping Canadian, stop hiding behind snek canuck. Let's see what your flag is, and what "arbitrary borders" your nation is built on.

Im arguing that your system of checks and balances is shit and doesn't work. Try explaining why it works instead of repeating the $.05 meme, which was created by shareblue to divide this place because idiots like you love to sow the seeds of your own death because you're so goddamn gullible.

DRUMPF BTFO

FOREVER
O
R
E
V
E
R

>It's a pretty odd and dysfunctional system

>it's a functional system at least

???

seriously, how unlucky can you be?

>checks and balances don't work!
So, what, just throw it out because you said so? Give us a reason why it didn't work other than, "MY FAVORITE CANDIDATE DIDN'T WIN!"

I mean, you can't, but give it a shot.

Then call up Al Gore and tell him there's been an awful mistake and he is the president now.

I already did. "Arbitrary borders"

BTFO By her own super delegates for a chocolate Messiah.

Except it's not arbitrary. They were designed up by the develops of the nation as it expanded. Then, as they solidified, the cultural and collective identity of the state cemented them. Just because you don't understand that doesn't make it arbitrary. Now, do you have a good reason, the third time I'm asking, that goes beyond buzz words or are you willing to GTFO?

to make a fair point, the US system worked before the superurbanization started. but that is becoming an increasingly severe problem when soon 70% of the people are only represented by 30% of the senators for example.

That's why we have a House of Representatives. That problem was already identified during the founding.

Also, why should a Presidential vote in Wyoming count roughly three-and-a-half times more than a Presidential vote in New York? Are rural voters more equal than urban ones? Where's your math or reasoning showing exactly how much a particular demographic's vote is worth?

>Wanting New York, California and Florida to decide the leader of the entire country

lol

This was already detailed ITT, and by the founding fathers.

see: It's to protect the minority opinion from mob rule.

>Chile not being the toddler

why don't you just quit the faggot charade and just admit you prefer mob rule.

Take your map, then compare the blue spots on it (outside the cities) to this map. Really makes you think...

>They were designed up by the develops of the nation as it expanded.
So they new that California woukd become the most populous state? And that it should also contain mostly rural areas populated by small towns as opposed to its urban areas? Did they predict the massive population shifts that happen all the time? The changes in the locations of economic infrastructure? Youre talking out your ass. The main purpose of the College was to allow the State Governments to select the President. There wasn't even a popular vote for president until about 1820.

which is subjected to hilarious gerrymandering.

So let me get this straight: the big cities of America (i.e. the places where cultures congregate and the places that will be most affected by elections) should be fine with allowing 80% of the election totals come from some backwoods shitholes in the Midwest? I mean, the fact of the matter is that big cities are big for a reason, and I don't see why we should allow some uneducated redneck retards have any kind of input as to who should fill the most important job in the country.

Why is Chicago so high compared to New York? Cool graph otherwise.

Not if there are 4 states, and three states vote 1-0 for the other guy. Even if the state with 7 people gets two votes, the overall count is still 3-2.

We are composed of fifty different governments, each with their own legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Each state's governor is the head of its own military force (national guard), and state's Supreme Court is the highest court with no judicial review by the US Supreme Court on most issues.

No, the founding fathers knew the country would change. Which is exactly why its governing system was built on a living document, adaptable, and with an entire slew of protections against people like you, who would try to steal and destroy the opinions of people you don't like.

Now you can fuck off.

>landmass

Exactly. All that red is landmass, not people. Last time I checked, land doesn't vote.

>muh founding fathers

>I hate thing.
And? Are you going to say that they were wrong to make a nation that tried to represent every fairly in their republic? Or are you going to tip your hand, reveal yourself to be a piece of garbage, and say you hate certain people regardless of the situation?

...

Yup, a living document. Which means not keeping a system designed for a country with 13 fledgling states. Just admit that you like the system where conservatives get a free branch of government and significant advantage on a second branch.

Then you didn't check.

No, now you have fair representation across the board. Just because Trump won doesn't mean it's stacked against your side sweetie

This guy.

Did you forget the part where the states had to agree with it individually and there's 200 years of development adding them in?

You're just going to make a shallow claim like this and literally ignore 200 years of development of this system? The same system that freed slaves and gave women the right to vote?

If your argument is, "It's old, throw it out," we can start with a few amendments as well, since that argument neatly applies to them as well. Like women's suffrage and anti-slavery amendments.

kek liberals btfo

Remember when the founding fathers designed this system of election and still believed that only white male land-owning members of society should be able to vote? Their views are hardly representative or relevant.

The russian hackers reallly did a shitty job with the vote rigging...

>fledgling governments

You numbskull. The colonies minted their own currency. It wasn't until after the Civil War (and arguably after WWII) that people started identifying with the federal government over their state government.

>living document

Just admit you want to stifle speech and ban guns. Quit with the faggy DNC code words

would bang 2008 hill dawg

>white male
>Their views are hardly representative or relevant.

here we go. (((commie faggot))) detected.

i like them. a lot actually. but you people threat them like superhumans who knew anything.

sure they tried to build a fair system. over 200 years ago. things change.

they certainly didnt want the rural minority to rule over the urban majority or vice versa. they wanted a balanced system. but that system is not balanced anymore.

thats what im saying. it urgently needs tweaking to be fair again.

Which is hilarious since they built the system that allowed for attitudes to change.

The height of the hilarity comes from, "MUH ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS BROKEN!" detractors. If they really wanted it to change they'd make an amendment for it.

But the reality is they can't get enough support for that and people who actually know the system know it works.

Imagine if Buenos Aires, Córdoba, and Rosario only mattered when voting for your President.

>Did you forget the part where the states had to agree with it individually
And much of that had to do with the self interests of people living there at that time. Not the interests if the future population of the entire nation. So yeah, why exactly should New York include the city and then include upstate areas which stretch all the way to the midwest, therefore shutting out an entire area of rural and small town/city people, putting them at the mercy of the mega urban city dwellers? Is this some kind of objectively decided thing based on perfect reasoning?

so we give welfare votes to backwoods retards instead?

Yup. And now we are using the system designed for those people.

see

They built a system their children and ancestors could update.

What you WANT is for people to change it regardless of their opinion. What you WANT is for people to just give you the update for free without just cause.

That's not happening. We call that a check and balance.

Trumpcucks so angry and no movement or success of Trump & GOP Congress they keeps going back to the "He won, get over it" line from 6 months ago.

Literally nobody cares any more. Now they're just laughing at how harmless and ineffective Trump has basically been. Most people who aren't shut-in autists neet virgins are a little annoyed at how he behaves like a 14-year old and verbally rambles like somebody with dementia on the world stage. But in the end that reflects more on him than the country since so few voted for him.

>If they really wanted it to change they'd make an amendment for it.
>But the reality is they can't get enough support for that and people who actually know the system know it works.

It's the same when people whine about drug laws or private prisons, people are okay with drugs being illegal and locking up criminals.

Trump never gonna be president now
F

Dodging the geographic question once again. The system that you vouch for clearly goes against you in certain cases, and you have no defense for it. You can only say that on the whole, as a nation, it gives rural areas more power.

Wow OP, that was sly! You may be a faggot, but at least in a Oscar Wilde sort of way.

The DNC is a private club that doesn't have to play by anyone's rules. Black men > white women on the progressive stack c. 2008, so Obama won by default.

I'm just glad I live in a country where all the "unfair" rules keep oligarchs like the Clintons and Bushes from being the only two families allowed to run. I was a liberal in 2008 and even back then the notion that of a nation of 300 million people, only direct relatives of Bill Clinton or George HW Bush were the best we could muster was fucking insulting.

The white male phrase is definitely relevant in this context.

>The system that you vouch for clearly goes against you in certain cases...
You just tipped you hand. Yes, I'm aware I don't always get what I want. It's called being an adult.

You're just going to have to accept there are people in the USA that don't agree with you and you can't ramrod laws through to shut them up. So, guess what? You're just going to have to deal with them. And your "geographical question" was answered already. States have their own level of independence, autonomy, and identity that goes beyond federal.

Enjoy those checks and balances. They're not going away any time soon.

>But the reality is they can't get enough support

and why is that genius?

Well, 1.) They don't like the system to begin with, 2.) They can't get enough people to change it, 3.) They never bothered to research how. There are multiple methods to get an amendment made. What they're crying for isn't an amendment process but to do away with the process and institute another with themselves on top.

That shit's whacked. They're just going to have to learn people disagree with them and those that disagree with them can't simply be ignored. That's what the spirit of "rights" is all about.

Get fucked.

I have no agenda beyond pointing out that yhe system is flawed. Anyone can see this. Putting lines on a map on voting based on those will disadvantage people unless you draw the lines in some sort of fair manner. You haven't proved that the lines are fair. Federal laws can override state laws and state autonomy doesn't help when the states demographics are skewed.

You have no argument. Hell, you can't even spell. Politics are based on geography as much as people, as geography dictates the needs of people in their sphere. Others in this nation enjoy the benefits of including these geographic areas and therefore must have a means to keep them included in the process, otherwise you have large areas disenfranchised completely-this leads to revolution. As far as numbers go, no candidate gets a majority of even eligible voters, let alone the populace; so that argument is void. We aren't a democracy, were not founded as one and do not want one.

But you have yet to successfully point out a flaw. All of your presented, "flaws," were based on misconceptions that were already cleared up. In fact, all you're doing is rehashing the same thing over and over and ignoring any answers you've been given. It's pretty pathetic. It's already been explained multiple times why it's fair. And no, federal laws do not always override state laws. And yes, state autonomy does help. And yes, demographics ARE skewed, which is why there's an electoral system.

All you want is to have it your way, Burger King style. Grow up. This isn't fast food politics. You can't make sweeping changes to a system that's already designed to change, do away with it, and then ignore the opinions of a vast majority of the USA on feelings and vague statements like, "arbitrary," especially after a coherent argument why it's not arbitrary was given to you.

Grow up, kid.

I gave reasons for how state lines are not drawn in a fair manner. You didn't give shit, faggot.

Or he uses spooks like "fairness," which is arbitrary. Basically everyone on the left of the spectrum bases their...arguments... on arbitrary factors. What is best for society- a thing that is ephemeral and shifting- or what is fair. This way they never actually have to make an empirical argument based on facts.

What? "Arbitrary?" Do you have actual reasons or, "I don't like thing?"

You know what? Don't bother. Just take your fast food politics and go. You're clearly just an unsatisfied customer that didn't understand everyone can get the same burger you do.

It's just a bluff. His idea of, "fairness," is, "shut them up while I get all the say."

Fair, is not an argument. Your version of it differs from another. Once you give an a priori fact, you can come back and sit at the big boy table.

>Primaries.

Nothing is more arbitrary than what is "fair."

You responded to my post () with this Looks like an admission that the founding fathers couldn't predict the future of the economy, demographics, and geography and intended to leave the system to be changed as a living document. They didn't even know that we would expand into the western US you dolt, and much less about what even existed there.

>Let's just remove the voting rights of rural citizens across 90% of the nation because they're dumb, unlike the intelligent city folk of Detroit, Chicago, etc