How can one candidate receive two million more votes than the other and still lose the election...

How can one candidate receive two million more votes than the other and still lose the election? The 2016 US election is clear proof that their electoral system is broken and in desperate need of fixing. The winner in any election should be the one with more public support. You would assume that people would accept this fact in 2017 but apparently not. The electoral college might have worked in the early days of the USA but it does not work anymore. Hillary Clinton is the true winner and is the president of the people.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

hey how about fuck off to your own country and learn how the electoral college works

More public support in less locations? Are you dumb?

> sums disparate election results as if they were all the same type
> ignores actual election results

I know how it works .. and it is not working as the founding fathers intended it to.

Learn about the Electoral College, and how so many """People""" who voted for Shillary were almost exclusivity in cities.
Then read about how incredibly bad it would be to repeal this method of electing a President.

Fukken kek it's literally working EXACTLY how the founding fathers intended it to
Fucking leafs man everytime lmao

Did Hillary's number of votes drop? I remember people parading that she won by 3 million votes, not 2

>implyng Hillary's "muh 2 million votes" isn't less than the amount convicts, illegals, and dead people who voted Democrat this past election

Baka.

OP you don't understand. If we let dumb fuck city slickers make all the important decisions, then the liberals wouldn't be in utter and complete control of the federal government. Why would you be for the globalist party, regardless of how our system works, what's wrong with you leaf? Couldn't you surmise how that'd be bad for Canada? The way of life in "fly over country" is fundamentally different than the way of life in the voting farms of the big city. Minorities shack up there, population is gullible, the government provides gibs in those areas, people are all packed together, so information and propaganda travel much faster. People in the big city are ripe for exploitation, in my book. People out in the country don't fly for that shit, they don't just trust whatever anyone says. You gotta go to the rust belt and connect with the people before they vote for you, and not only that, in these rural areas, they grow your fucking food. If all the rural farm workers were exploited, they could easily opt-out and try for secession. Then no one is growing the food and everyone dies. You have to respect the countryfolk, they live the hard life so your cities can actually function.

>muh voter fraud

Dude this is an unproved conspiracy theory with no hard evidence to support it. Do you honestly think dead people can vote? That they just gonna rise up from their grave or something?

>If we let dumb fuck city slickers make all the important decisions

So all the racist, redneck hillbilly's should be making the important decisions?

Why are Canadians so fucking ignorant, and can't grasp the simple concept of living in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Fucking leafs are so fucking stupid.

As a fellow leaf I would suggest you do the math on Canadian election numbers. Guess what? Same shit happens here.

...

Wrong

Hillary got more votes than Obama did.

Says the "pirate".

Whatsa matter, afraid to show what shithole you live in>

speaking of wrong

why make bait threads like this? Is it because of the void in your soul, that keeps eating away your sanity bits by bits, every time our PM apologizes?
Every time the Ontario government enacts a law to be progressive?
Everty time a pride parade displays nothing but degeneracy, but people praise it as stunning and brave?
Every time the Qc government is involved in a corruption scheme, and nobody goes to jail?
None of this is your fault
it's okay
maybe it's not going to be alright, but it's okay

Proves what exactly?

The party with the most votes is leading the country. Our electoral system works. The USA's does not.

Because leftist cities are overcrowded. Without the electoral college overcrowding them further would allow arbitrary take-overs of US federal elections.

Because democracy is mob rule where the loudest dumbest group controls everything. Thank God we live in a constitutional republic where we vote for qualified people to represent us.

No one was talking about the electoral system until after Trump won.

Your problem isn't with the system, your problem is with the result.

Both parties and candidates knew how the system works, they both campaigned with the system in mind and their result is thus a reflection of their political competence.

The electoral college controversy will be forgotten by next election.

The amount of votes literally does not matter because our country collectively agrees to use the electoral college system instead. If we knew we were voting based on how many people voted for each candidate then we'd have to rely on the entire population actually bothering to vote.

>You would assume that people would accept this fact in 2017 but apparently not.
You would think people would understand the difference between a direct democracy and a federal republic in 2017, but apparently not.

Holy fuck son, do some research before you make yourself look even stupider.

Our first past the post system works just as fucked as the US system.

Democrats often get burned by the electoral college (it happened in 2000 too).

But they always forget to fix it when they're in power.

Illegal immigrants and California commies, you stupid leaf.

We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
We do not allow the largest inner cities full of shit-skins and jews decide who runs our nation.
We like it this way
Fuck off leaf.

What happened to the three gorillion?

imagine if CALIFORNIA could dictate who is the president.

imagine how bad that would be.

Because otherwise the election would have been decided by one state, making the other 60 million votes not matter. It's literally working as intended.

>liberals get 39% of the vote
>more than 50% of seats
>promise electoral reform
>"lmao jk"

Canadian """"democracy""""

If I remember correctly, California had 100.6% of voters vote for her. How can you defend that, cucks?

Your god Drumpf even admits the electoral college is broken beyond repair.

This is false.
When you factor in illegal votes, illegal non-citizen votes, illegal multiple votes, electronic fraud, ballot stuffing, fraction magic and all other forms of documented democratic party election fraud Donald Trump easily received more votes in the 2016 United States presidential election than Hillary Clinton.

The people chose Hillary, the system chose Trump.

kek

Poor people wanted a retard running the country and there are lots of pockets of retard that allows retards to elect retards

Yes, it is a disaster for a pure democratic system, but the United States is a Republic.

[spoiler]bait[/spoiler]

Neither is how we elect our senators. The founders aren't gods you know. They were power hungry aristocrats that wanted to keep the people happy while ruling. And by people I mean white land owners. Senators used to be elected by the state legislature of each state and not by popular vote. The electoral college was made to give the founders a way to change who was elected president of they didnt like how the common people voted, hence why you vote for electors and not the actual person you want to win, this electors then vote for who they want, no matter what the people who voted for them wanted.

Based leaf haha.

in 2016 it worked exactly as intended.

The presidential election is not a simple majority vote, it is a majority of majorities vote.

...

>EXACTLY how the founding fathers intended it to
>letting an immigrant and a women run
Founders would have thrown both candidates into the ocean

>Muh election fraud

pic related is user

It just doesn't make sense.

>Have a union of 50 states
>think one state alone should be allowed to tell who gets to be president

>The electoral college was made to give the founders a way to change who was elected president of they didnt like how the common people voted
Originally the populace wasn't trusted enough to vote for the President. Because they knew people would get caught up in bullshit and not choose based on actual political merits.

...

6 million illegals voted
We can deport them all or the Holocaust didn't happen

People elected the government like China kinda does. They vote for state reps who elected people to congress and so on. Of course most people viewed going to DC as shitty.

But he lost the popular vote...

Less populous states get a bit more of a voice in the electoral college due to all states getting two representatives regardless of population. Then the rest are divvied up proportional to population.

Founders designed the system to try to help prevent tyranny of the majority and a few highly populous states from deciding the leader for the rest of the country.

One of the many checks and balances built into our government. Remember that the US is a constitutional republic, and not a pure democracy.

Wait so why did I not see the same threads when Obama won canadite elect over Hillary when Hillary had more votes than obama.

YES IT IS FAGGOT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ISN'T MEANT TO BE CONTROLLED BY 5 COASTAL CITIES THAT DON'T EVEN PRODUCE ANYTHING EXCEPT FAGGOTS AND WELFARE LEACHES!!!!!!!!

A FUCKING LEAF

That's exactly what happened in 2016. Texas decided who would be president. You Liberal hypocrites are getting tiresome.

He lost the illegal vote in California, and New York City. If you subtract the illegals that voted, and not allow felons to vote in Va he would have had a larger electoral college vote, and won the popular vote as well. This will be fixed by the next election, mark my words.

in the 2015 uk general election:
UKIP got about 12% of the vote and ended up with 1 MP out of 650 (0.2%)
the SNP got 5% of the vote and got 56 MPs out of 650 (8.6%)
democratic systems do not always reflect democracy

Because the US president is meant to represent the interests of all of America and not only the most population-dense areas. Going by just popular vote alone would mean the presidential candidates would only ever bother courting and campaigning in major cities.

The DNC+superdelegates chose Hillary.
Actual liberals chose Bernie.
Actual conservatives chose Trump.

You sound as salty as Clinton fans. Pathetic! You also have no actual evidence which makes it even worse. The study he references is shit tier. Little responses, attacks every other study, etc... If you believe that than you should believe what CNN and Fox tells you...

And you guys don't even get to pick your candidates if I'm not incorrect? Don't you have to be a party loyalist to get the nomination and there's no primaries/caucuses so you're always stuck with an establishment cuck?

>the US president is meant to represent the interests of all of America

All of America voted. They unanimously chose Hillary Clinton.

Thank you.

No salt, my guy won the presidency, and my "guys" will win the 2018 elections.

Check it in '18.

In life, sometime you win things not because you have the largest fan base but it is how you score

No. It's actually proof the electoral system as laid out by the country's founders WORKS. It not now, or ever was, intended for a dense population centers or specific areas be allowed to vote in the President. 30 states should not be held hostage by the 20 that voted Clinton. The electoral college is the most fair system. With so many illegals voting, dead people voting, people voting twice it's even more important as those types of votes tend to come from concentrated areas. Hillary Clinton is not the true winner. You can't just make up rules, apply them, then declare victory. Hillary Clinton is not President and will never, ever be President. Make peace with that.

neither of those statements is true

>implying everyone living rural is redneck and lacking intellectual capacity
>Canada has like 6 big cities everything else is rural
Well you just made 90% of Canada sound like they shouldn't be capable of voting
>Man child PM
Oh fuck
You make me embarrassed to be a leaf, you and so many others.

Don't care. Just saying illegals didn't do shit, at worse they made super blue regions a slight more blue. He won the war, that's all that matters. 2018 will be shit for both parties. All I hope is we see another party with actual politics and not more corporate degenerate puppets.

What can we expect from a leaf a year on after the election? This shit

...

Let's talk about 1913.

He's not wrong, but the US is not a democracy.

City faggots are subhuman and the founding fathers knew this and reflected it in their electoral voting system. Brainwashed retards in a sardine can sewer sweat city can't be depended on to have individual opinions.

They balance the election by state not population centers, this is a simple concept one that if you cannot grasp then don't deserve the chance to form a rebuttal and have me respond anyways.

it's true that we don't have the same circus that the US does to pick candidates. but anyone can stand as a candidate in an election and occasionally independents do upset the proverbial applecart. pic related is martin bell, a journalist who stood against a corrupt MP in 1997 and won.

>the more democracy, the better
you shit sloshing fucktarded fucking leaf

That big ass blazer is pissing me off

Our Founders were well educated men. They specifically chose to make us, not a democracy, but a representative republic.
Study up on the fall of Greece and you might understand.
It is also very clearly discussed in the Federalist Papers, #68, written by Alexander Hamilton.
It worked perfectly, even with the threats to the electors.

yep
many such cases in France, for one
that's how we used (?) to elect each and erry Paris mayor, for instance

the same way a team can get more hits and throw more strikes but still lose. if you don't understand that then you're literally retarded.

>Canada claiming others need to fix their system.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott
Considering it's literally illegal for you to agree with Sup Forums all your shitposting makes sense now, Leaf.

electoral college is voter welfare for republicans

It’s not broken. Direct democracy is stupid.

It's an attempt to balance the scales.

I thought liberals supported minorities, welfare, and affirmative action?

This is why.

>Only 2 million disparity, more votes from large population centers
>Unanimously
Do you not understand the definition of unanimously? How fucking dumb are you going to continue to make yourself look? Kek

illegals don't count

we are not a pure democracy which is essentially mob rule

the electoral college moderates the tendency for dense urban areas to vote in blocks . In this way such masses are not able to steer the nation but representation is allotted so states with less dense populations have equal weight..

Its true genius designed to prevent people from easily buying votes in cities where the people are mostly stupid , poor and easily lead

It more supports reactionary politics. Needs to be rebalanced with a Senate/House as well as a districting reform.

how can you say that it isn't working how it's supposed to when about 50% of eligible voters actually vote on a good day?

The electoral college is based on representation, not mob rule. You cannot get an accurate pol of 100% of Americans so you do your best to try to represent the interests of each one by state.

It's what the Founding Fathers intended. And you are too canadian to understand.

Thats basically one of the bigger cities entirely choosing the president. Not exactly fair.

>implying shitty city people actually are worth as much as a decent Human being

The major cities would dominate the country. It would start another civil war

Californians liberals aren’t sane they shouldn’t count

Trying to equate democracy with mob rule.

You sound like a communist.

You are Scum.