This map demonstrates the necessity of the electoral college and the obvious reason why the democrats were so quick to...

This map demonstrates the necessity of the electoral college and the obvious reason why the democrats were so quick to cry for it to be abolished. 4-5 states would impose their will on the other 45 states in the union. And these states effectively said, after the election, that how everyone else feels is horseshit.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Their will

You mean the will of the majority? Sounds pretty terrifying. Especially when you consider that that’s how democracy is supposed to work.

I get that you’re insecure and everything, but your whole “One person in bumfuck Wisconsin should matter as much as four people in California because I hate liberals” argument makes no sense.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

>Necessity of the electoral college
>Your vote counts more based on where you live
I'm not surprised the right hates democracy.

It ensure unity and minimazes the risk of state separation which is always the goal or foren influence/intent!

Except it's not really the majority. It's the will of a few states vs the will of 45 (FOURTY FIVE) other states. You retards running around with pussies on your head screaming HES NOT MY PRESIDENT, and with LOVE TRUMPS HATE signs, while forming huge violent mobs and championing law breaking degeneracy sure does make you look stupid and insecure though.

>democracy
we live in a republic ya dingus

>democracy

We are federal constitutional republic retard

The guy is right, the electoral system is there to stop places like Rome in the Roman Empire or Paris during the French Empire from bossing everyone around.

Such cities in their times brought great destruction upon the little guys all for the selfish greed of imperial cities. It breeds civil war, revolution and death.

The electoral college is the compromise in favor of decentralization. It is also an effective tool against ballot stuffing. For a party to win the have to be able to stuff the ballot boxes in states they don't control. In the end, we just see how many states a party controls and whoever controls the most electors wins.

It's a great system, it stopped Hillary from imposing her will on the majority of states who didn't want it. It also ensured her ballot stuffing didn't win the election. Of course, she gets to screech she won the popular vote for the third time it's happened in almost two and a half centuries and the second time it's happened in two decades.

>democrats import browns vote slaves
>white flight causes white dems to move to the Midwest
>democrats control the whole country
>America is a brown LGBTQ empire within the year

The United States was formed to give representation to each of the states, not solely individuals.

>democracy
We live in a democratic republic. A direct democracy is stupid because the average person is stupid and elections would just turn into worse popularity contests than they are now.

The U.S. was also formed where you couldn't elect senators, but then we realize that was ripe for corruption.

If you hate democracy, go live in Somalia.

>A direct democracy is stupid because the average person is stupid
We literally have that now, but with lower IQ people getting more votes. This is everything you are complaining about, but worse than a democratic election.

>ripe for corruption.

Because our system is so lacking in corruption now. Right?

Senators were never intended as "Super Congressmen". They're meant to be direct representatives of the interests of States. The House represents the people.

Thats why all bills about the budget must originate from the House, why they have elections every 2 years. They're the most powerful and most directly linked to the People. Whats the fucking point of trying to recreate that with the Senate? It was never meant to be a House 2.0

/thread

My question is - why is voter turnout so low?

And for anyone who's upset at the electoral college, you're free to amend the Constitution. And if it's going to be straight democracy then we need voter IDs

Why's it so hard for people to understand that the US isn't just a single sovereign entity and is a union of states?

You guys should have stopped at the articles of confederation desu senpaitachi.

>lower IQ people getting more votes
Brainlet detected.

It's really not that difficult to grasp. Americans don't elect their president, they elect people to seats allocated to their state who then elect the president. It's really quite simple, a vote in Florida has no value or comparison whatsoever against one in Utah.

The only other votes that matter against yours in an election are other ones in your state. Because you live in a state within a union and the decision of your state goes towards the election of the president.

States picking the senators was a good thing, it is impossible to control every legislature in America. Good senators would make it through, now they are destroyed before they're even candidates.

I wish they had the electoral college for state and local elections

That and it would allow insulation from making necessary but not necessarily popular decisions. The Senate ratifies foreign treaties and appoints presidential appointments. Very important decisions which should not be partisan. By making senators directly answer to the people they turn into grandstanding faggots who shove nuanced statesmanship out the window to score political points.

Stupid boy, in the end the candidate who wins is the better one for America. America would be worse right now under Hillary because people have been placated with a conservative president. Without that placation, civil strife would be higher now than it already is.

>Because our system is so lacking in corruption now. Right?
So if it's not absolutely perfect we shouldn't bother and should be ok with it being worse?

Oh gee, looks like you sprained your ankle, better amputate that leg.

>They're meant to be direct representatives of the interests of States

Sounds awfully like aristocracy to me, can't have that, you might end up with a legislative chamber that's fundamentally conservative and meant to protect the integrity of the country against populism.

At least you have the Supreme Court for that, r-right?

This

It completely undermines the original intent. Super senators who are incumbent can't be gotten rid off. It used to be that disloyal senators lost their jobs or senators lost their jobs when the politics of their states shifted what kinds of people were in their states legislatures.

You would by crying and yelling if Hillary got less votes and won the election. You don't don't give two shits about the process, you only care that a singular result happened how you wanted it to.

>Watch states the world over divide and fall apart with secession when a populous center tries to lord over the peripheries and use birth rate demographics to justify unilateral dominion.
>Hey that's a great idea let's do it here.

It was also a 1-2 million difference. Hardly this idea of some 25% of the population ruling the majority. I'm surprised the dumb ass democrats don't run with some claim of electoral apartheid since they love to sensationalize it.

The one appeal of direct vote for the president is that it would galvanize red voters in blue states and blue voters in red states to actually vote. But I'd rather see something akin to proportional Electoral College votes given based on state percentages. That'll still encourage Republican Californians or democratic midwesterners to vote, but it will also preserve our EC federation of states.

So in other words you're no better than we are, because the only reason you give a damn is because your candidate would have won without the EC. Put her in Trump's shoes and you'd champion the EC

That and the nature of how senators were elected undermined their apparent importance. Now with only 100 senators vs. 435 congressmen, each senator stands out in public discourse. They become political celebrities because their votes are so much more valuable and impactful compared to the House. Which is utter bullshit. The House was always meant to be the most powerful of all our branches.

>Good senators
and before direct election of Senators, all kinds of crooks and bought-off lowlifes became Senators
the local-yokel State legislatures appointed them - and they wanted them bringing home the bacon, not fucking around with grand national Statesmen issues.

it's intrinsically bad for us now either way - 100 people is too small a number to hold that much sheer power in a country of 340 million (+30 million illegals)

>So in other words you're no better than we are, because the only reason you give a damn is because your candidate would have won without the EC
Nope. If Hillary had won with less votes I'd be right there with you ranting and raving about the electoral college, because the ONLY thing I give a shit about is the process.

...

>yokel local states wanted bacon brought home

Is that not the very definition of what representatives should do? Why are states not entitled to benefit from a union they're apart of? I'd rather the federal government concern itself with pleasing the state's with pork projects over forcing states into submission to alloe it to carry out its retarded ass empire building projects where we shove money everywhere around the world EXCEPT in our country.

Dumb boy, the people also elect their local governments which, in turn, choose the senators. Or the governor will, who is also elected by the people. If the people throw out the current state government, the senator will change to reflect the new leadership. Now state elections have become less important, less watched or paid attention to. The more your local election matters, the better. You can't rig enough state congressional district elections to buy the senators you want under the old system. Now, however, you just need more money than your opponent. That is relative, it could be a large or small amount relatively. Both are much cheaper than buying a majority of the state congress.

Obvious bait. He's even got the Spongebob 'boi' pic with it. Sup Forumstards too easily tricked these days.

>proportional Electoral College votes given based on state percentages

No, this is just a popular vote, all the parties stuff the ballots, you would reward the most corrupt. At least the electoral college shows us which party controls which state.

Hillary ran a shitty campaign and basically only appealed to voters in California and New York. These voters do not share the same culture and interests as rust belt voters, southern voters and mid west voters. The coalition of a much broader part of the union outweigh how much new englanders and californians REALLY REALLY wanted her. And for the good of the union we dont allow basically 2 States to dictate to the other 48.

Will of the States > Will of the People

Nobody is claiming that governments aren't corrupt. Sure, senators were corrupt then as they are now. It was easier to get rid of senators before. It is much harder now. Key senators hog their seats for life and accomplish way more evil on a larger scale than could've ever been achieved under the old system.

>that green guy in the california central valley
neat, i wason't the only one in the area to vote other, for Aleppo in my case

States aren’t people.

Try winning by coming up with good ideas

You might (I doubt it) but liberals would not. They bitched about brexit when brexit was pure democracy because the more populous English voted to exit and the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish had their concerns marginalized. Likewise this facilitated the emergence of the absurd and disgusting "People over 65 shouldn't vote" meme which is our generation's "Don't trust anyone over 30" ignorance, as if we're going to be okay with our votes being taken away when we are over 65. Easy to say "yeah I won't give a shit about that" when you are in your teens, twenties or thirties because that will be decades away.

What is fair and impartial to observe is that:
-We need to give reasons for minority partisans (republican californians, democratic Texans) to vote.
-As a federal union of states we need to guarantee voice to all states, not just the most populous. The very same rationale of "let's get rid of the EC" inevitably leads to "let's get rid of the Senate - how dare Montana and Delaware have the same voice as California or Texas". This is not slippery slope, this is a guarantee. If people are mad that the president can be elected by 'unfair representation' where one state's citizens has more voting power than another, this will mean they are mad at the Senate having the same policy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact also real curious the only signatories are those who will benefit from it.

10/10 would play sonic 3 with and cuddle

The Sanhedrin was a fucking mistake.

It was swing states that hold sway, not the sparsely populated fly over states.

States are more important than individuals.

States are comprised of people, retard.

All the swing states are "flyovers" except Florida.

Why the fuck did she campaign in California or New York? Those states are such a lock for dems, it looked more like a victory tour than a presidential campaign.