Redpill me on the Electoral College

Redpill me on the Electoral College.

Why do libs push to change/remove it.

What makes it more fair than the regular system of voting.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0
270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>united STATES of america
thread done saged

>Why do libs push to change/remove it.

Because they know they'll have the popular vote eternally locked based on numbers alone.

>What makes it more fair than the regular system of voting.

It's probably not a fair system of voting, still. But if we switch to the popular vote, the "flyover states" will completely lose any political voice they ever had.

Protects against the lefties biting the hand that feeds them

they liked it just fine last summer. what changed?

>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because it keeps Jew York and Commiefornia from picking the president

I keep thinking about that, it does make sense if it would protect from that kind of mob rule.

But then again, there are more people outside of those areas no ?

The country is a republic of states, each state needs to have a fairly equal voice in deciding the president. If you were to remove it and go popular vote, the election would be decided by New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Every other state would no longer matter

Because they want all the illegal beaners voting in California to decide the election.

I actually think we ccould abolish the electoral colleges, so long as we also get federal voter ID and much better fraud protection.

>But then again, there are more people outside of those areas no ?
Overall yes, but statewise no.

Any discussion of the electoral college will lead to the same conclusion, the USA is hopelessly divided. No election system is going to work well in such a massive country with different values by region. I say split up the country into several smaller ones

>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
because they keep losing close elections to the republican who knows how to work the college see trump, bush, hayes

youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0

Its retarded because the Senate is already represented 2 per state

They lost.

They only push to change it when their candidate loses.

you underestimate how many people there are in cali and NY

and thats not counting illegals and illegal votes. Electoral college means that no matter how many people are in those 2 states, they can't decide elections. otherwise they would have a disproportionate influence

like 3 or 4 regions or just 50 sovereign states? both sound interesting.

>Redpill me on the Electoral College.

I have it on good authority that it's a "disaster".

It was a well-intentioned idea that failed.

It was meant to prevent a few regions from deciding the election based on population (New York, California, New Jersey, etc). Instead, a few states decide the election based on swing-state status (Florida, Ohio, etc).

America is doomed because despite the majority of the population being relatively progressive on economic issues, our election system puts us at the behest of retarded christian dirt-farmers who don't give a fuck what happens to the country because the rapture's coming.

Gerrymandering also contributes to the same result; a government that shits on the very concept of consent of the governed.

illinois is a republican state. Farm country for 95% of the state. Chicago however is full of nigs and spics so they control the elections. The electoral college prevents this on a national scale.

50 sovereign states would probably themselves form 3 or 4 countries for security and stability

Illegal votes are a actually republicuck myth.

The risk/reward is fucked.

fucking someone who understands. EC is there to insure metropolitan votes don't cancel out rural votes.

It's suppose to be 50 independent autonomous states/countries deciding, not a mass collectivization of all the people within them.

People have a hard time conceptualizing the electoral college because the power of the states has diminished greatly vs. the federal government now compared to the past. Most everyone views themselves as American, not a Marylander or Kentuckian. This wasn't always the case.

If you don't believe in the power of the states vs. the federal government, the electoral college is never going to make sense to you.

>We don't live in a democracy
>We live in a republic
>Your affiliation to your state comes before your affiliation to your nation
>You don't vote for the president
>You actually vote for who your state will support for president.
>The person that can gain the majority of the states to support him becomes president
>but its not fair that small states get the same vote as big states so they compromise with a weighted system to give the big states more leverage
>but in return the proportion of citizens per electoral vote is in favor of the small states

>that is why we have an electoral system.

I wanted to add:

Congress has a 20% approval rating, and Trump has a 36% approval rating

How the fuck can anyone pretend the U.S. federal government has ANY legitimacy?

We need to balkanize. The country is effectively ungovernable in it's current state.

It exists so that voting power is not concentrated in the major metropolitan areas. Dems were just fine with it when Obama won reelection.

>cherry picking a tweet from 6.5 yrs ago
Technically, he's right though, that's why it's good. It's a check against pure democracy. That's why all 4 times it's happened, a Republican benefited.

>the majority of the country being progressive on economic issues
Again, these people are concentrated in a few states. Even if you remove the electoral college the Senate would still be dominated by Republicans and moderate Dems. If you want socialism move to Cali where they're progressively enacting those policies at a state level.

>We don't live in a democracy
>We live in a republic

Are you under the delusion that "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive concepts?

>Trumpcuck education

Similar to first past the post, it ensures that the Tyranny of the Majority does not become something that people have to contend with. It makes sure that coastal city folk don't get to dictate policy for the rural farmers when they have no understanding of their way of life.

without it it becomes "Who does California want as president".

Do you want that?

> implying it's not "Who does Florida and Ohio want to be president"

That was easy.

Our electoral system is winner-take-all, so it structurally supports a two-party system. This means no coalition governments like in Europe, where compromise is thereby further supported, and the overton window is thus made smaller, at least in the realm of governmental politics, which then influences outward as things do. This allows for greater societal control by the elite. Where the electoral college was created to provide originally something of this control, it no longer functions like this, and getting rid of it will actually empower the elites.

The American style also emphasizes political individuals, where in Europe the parties are elected, who then choose the politician. This American emphasis is an outgrowth of a two party system, where individuals vie for power within that context, whereas in the euro-system parties vie for power, because they don't have an electoral system. This makes outsiders who don't really represent the rest of their parties, like Trump or Sanders, impossible or unlikely. Beyond that, ideological umbrella parties like those in a two party system are both empowering to ideological minorities and disempowering to ideological majorities within those parties. The media complex, the educational complex, the financial sectors, are controlled by leftists and Jews. The splitting into ideologically more distinct multi-party systems, as would result would greatly empower them. The Republican party as it is (politicians or voterbase), is a far wider umbrella coalition of various smaller ideological groups (libertarians, neo-cons, racially conscious white people), whereas the democratic party is far more of a monolith. They would therefore be empowered in a multi-party system, which is the structural outgrowth of a proportional, non-electoral, system.

The very wide coalition of far-flung conservative interests represented by the modern republican voterbase is probly the only thing keep the flood of poz back. W/o it, say hello to king jew

>It was a well-intentioned idea that failed.
Weird, when Obama won twice in a row we didn't hear a peep from the Republicans. All of a sudden, Trump wins and it's a failure?

The constitution is also a piece of shit beyond repair.

We'd be better off with a parliament that'd allow third parties.

>We should devolve into the shit pit that is Britain.
No.

Because Obama won in spite of the electoral college, not because of it.

Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college.

> it's okay having two pro-war pro-globalist parties

Democrats lose in every version of the elctoral college whether it's Winner Take All, Congressional Districts, or Proportional Allocation.
270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

The only way they can hope to win is a national popular vote.

>Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college.
Oh, he won the electoral college? Great. What separated him from Trump then?

Interesting loaded question followed by T_D style circle jerking.
Although I would wager that 'libruhls' are butt-hurt about the institution because 'they' "lost".

1/2

Trump didn't win the popular vote.

That's the difference.

Consent of the governed, which is a prerequisite for a government to be legitimate, is the difference.

2/2

we aren't a democracy, dumbasses
we're a representative republic

>representative democracy

>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because they lost

They liked it a lot when Obama won (despite the fact that he also won the popular vote).

>voting
>"People have to power to change the government"

THIS
H
I
S

And Chicongo

Not our fault that Hillary was okay with destroying our economy and then proceeded to ignore us through her campaign. She could've came here, but didn't.

>Consent of the governed
The most high and mighty thing I've heard all day.

> fuck John Locke, what a fuckin faggot, PRAISE KEK #MAGA
You see the problem, though, right?

No matter how you slice it, the president will be picked by a handful of regions to the detriment of others.

I kept a quote a South African that fits:

Do you really think that any of the US states with lower populations would have joined the union if it was one man one vote?

Imagine if we had to elect a world goverment tomorrow. If it was decided by popular vote, China and India alone would have more than a 1/3rd (!!) of the total vote. We would all either be at the mercy of their choices due to the sheer weight they carry, or face eternal deadlock Why would any country join such a world government if it meant that they would no longer have any say?

Follow your friends

If you take cali, texas, ny, and florida thats roughly 1/3 of the population. Without the electoral college candidates would pander to those states + 3 or 4 more and screw the rest of the country over. The electoral college is 100% necessary for our country.

Are you idiots really that partisan and brainwashed in here that you don't realize the electoral college means 1 vote doesn't necesarily equal 1 vote?

Oh right you elected a orange facist used car salesman for the maymays

EXACTLY.

Any government spread too thin will fail to represent its constituents, and will inevitably be ripped apart.

This is a big part of why empires have a shelf-life.

Just like a global government would be doomed, the U.S. federal government looks increasingly doomed due to polarization.

There's a serious argument to be made that the electoral college is a violation of equal protection under the law for that very reason.

>we're a representative republic

And how are those representatives chosen, you humongous inbred retard hypercunt? Maybe democratically?

>Trumpcuck education

So we're the same political system as Switzerland?

>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because they've lost twice because of it recently, no other reasons.

The electoral college is a very old compromise. Back when the constitution was being written, there was a fear that populous south will overpower underpopulated north in elections. Since both "regions" of the US were different economically speaking, they've had different needs regarding for example trade policy(and this continued for decades). Electoral college propped up small northern states with small population like Rhode Island or Connecticut, while making states like Virginia(back then bigger than it is now) or NC little less powerful in state matters. Now of course every campaign would trade RI for VA but the balance was tipped slightly towards small states.

Nowadays, the 3 vote states include:
>Vermont
>Delware
>DC

As states that typically vote for Democrats regardless of elections.

>ND
>SD
>Wyoming
>Alaska

Which typically vote Republican.

Montana is kind of a swing state, if you look at the polls and results through the years, they probably mostly vote republicans because of gun rights if anything.

So you have 3 vs 4 solid 3 vote states and one red-leaning one. Technically a little bit skewed towards Republicans but in the grand scheme of things nobody visits these states during campaigns(maybe outside of DC) so they're pretty much worthless.

> direct democracy is the only kind of democracy

please, read a fucking book, for once in your life

>You see the problem, though, right?

Maybe she should've appealed to a larger voter base.

Neither of you understand US politics. Go read a book or listen to a lecture and come back when you're less of a retard.

You don't understand.

If the electoral college allows the election to be decided by a few (swing) states, it's self-defeating and pointless.

Swing states change. A popular vote election would allow for the election to be decided by a few cities, which would never change.

It's almost impossible to prove after the fact, so the risk isn't as high as you think it is.

> No, really guys, it makes sense to have a leader who the majority of the country opposed from day one!
> If you don't want your vote to arbitrarily count less than a shitkicker in central pennsylvania you're a retard

Thats not the point I was trying to make. A popular vote applied to a government does NOT WORK. If anything, this popular vote shit has us polarised even more! The only reason you don't feel represented is because this particular roll of the dice didn't turn out in your favor.

>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
They only really care when they lose
They were defending it in 2012 when they thought they have the demographics on lock for the foreseeable future.

Swing states are just states that dont lean heavily towards either party. Saying that they decide the whole election is retarded.

It's affirmative action for the biggest losers in American society. Rural and suburban right wing retard methed out flyover Cleetustards

>letting California and New York decide every election
You're an idiot.

Fpbp

Okay we'll see how long the union lasts if the 10 most populous states get pick the president every time.

Swing states changed through years. The fact that various, sometimes small states have different interests than the big ones didn't.

Take the simplest thing - coal.

There are 3 states that are typical "coal states" in the US. Pennsylvania, Western Virginia and Wyoming. WV and WY have 4 and 3 votes each, while Penny has 20, but most of this doesn't come from those coal-producing areas(it's a big, populous state), meaning that in general elections, coal mines and coal power plant workers(and their families) don't matter at all, politicians can kill them on screen and nobody will care. With EC, they can swing Penny and equal 7 votes total from WV and WY so suddenly, they start to matter and their problems are being addressed.

Noh. Split states up based on population density. It affects culture and state interests. Illinois is being severely affected by Chicago. Same thing in California, which should be like 6 states. New York state is different from New York City. Large cities and surrounding suburbs should be their own states with their own senates and reps. And states rights should be expanded. That's how you allow greater harmony in the states.

dem states openly and knowingly allow vote fraud. giving thise few states all the control would destroy the country and lead to civil war. remember all the nukes are in red states

the representatives are chosen democratically, but the government is a constitutional republic.

That's just it though.

The union itself is a fucking retarded idea.

Yes but those regions aren't a lock for any one party. Infinitely preferable to "republicans don't even run for office in" California getting to decide.

Thats not what were arguing about dumbfuck. Dont try to change the subject because you have no idea what you're talking about.

What about the nukes in ships you fucking spastic?

And for that matter, who gives a fuck? Is America going to nuke itself to defend a shitty?

Kansas here. If the electoral college seized to exist, everyone would just stop going to the polls here

Champaign County is only blue due to the university students and the hippies in Urbana. Fuckers ruin everything.

*subs

fuck me

America would be better for it

>The union itself is a fucking retarded idea.
Unless you win everytime, of course. Then all is harmony.

Hi Justin

Leftists want to ditch the electoral college for a majority vote system because that way they can cheat by pumping in millions of fake votes.

Nothing says "better" like Democrat fortresses amirite?

>the government is a constitutional republic

A government isn't a nation, therefore it can't be a republic.

Words have meanings. Learn them.

Day of the rake fucking when?

You seem to forget most of the rural and suburban retards can read while 30% of city people are illiterate.

Try to vote, risk getting caught and being deported
Don't vote, risk losing election and being deported

The risk/reward is absolutely there, it's just a matter of how many actually do it. Especially since a lot of them probably don't even know they aren't supposed to vote, what with Obongo and Slick Willy tacitly encouraging it.

Liberals only want to remove it when it doesn't work for them. I remember them defending it when Obama won without the popular vote.