Help me get this straight Sup Forums

Help me get this straight Sup Forums

Donald Trump won and apparently im the problem for not voting, but I live in california which is a state that Hillary won for electoral votes.

So my vote literally doesnt meant shit since she won California right? It doesnt matter how many people didnt vote in California specifically because she won enough votes to win the electoral votes.

So if thats the case then the people who didnt vote and are in states that Trump won, they are the problem here.

Am I right or am I missing something?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qfL5KwUuvMc
factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Define WON/WIN

no one won this election sept the 1%

you all lost

You're absolutely right, and that's exactly why the EC should be abolished.

People shouldn't have their votes weighted differently, the result is some people being completely disenfranchised.

ah average southern Californian, go back to the chimp outs or maybe study economics and government

Depends, voting is never bad to ensure it. If more liberals in Cali start having that mentality, then Cali will go to the Republicans. So it does matter. Go out and do your civic duty instead of spreading this stupid message

i think having a group of 500 or something people that have experiance in government and economy is a great failsafe from us selecting a bad leader

you dont understand the electoral college and its purpose
either stop talking about things you dont understand, or kys

thank you
>ps I didnt vote for trump so dont project your insecurities on me retard

God damn, dude. Why do you need this spelled out for you? Yes, Trump won more electoral votes.

get over the EC turbofag. you wouldn't be complaining about it if your favorite candidate won.

the EC doesn't disenfranchise anyone. simple majorities within states elect electors. electors are proportional to population plus two for senators. there's nothing unbiased or anti-democratic about it. if anything, it's removes the undue weight on they system from urban centers.

we live in a federal republic not a direct democracy, shitcock. don't like it, amend the constitution.

If you're state can be relied on as a straight ticket state, then yes. Your vote means nothing and never will. Unless you live in 15 swing voter state, maybe then your vote will mean something. Winning the presidency is really campaigning how much you care about the people in these key states while having little money and campaigns on the other states only to show the press that you're doing what you can all across the US.

If you want your state to be fought for, you need to be swing voter state. The same rules apply to any category that identifies you: black/hispanic/middle-class/female/LGBT/etc.

Being a straight ticket voter will guarantee that you're never represented by either side.

what undue urban weight? simply because someone chooses to live near more people than rurals doesn't make their vote worth any less

>wanted Hillary in

No, you are the problem

why people not voting clinton are problems? people have their righ to vote for trump or any other candidate. Assuming that people not voting should have voted clinton is very arrogant.

I obviously know the basics of it you fucking retard. I was only asking for confirmation since voting in general is dumb shit and isnt straight forward

youtube.com/watch?v=qfL5KwUuvMc SEXY VIDEO!

it doesn't make it worth any less. you still have to win simple majorities or pluralities in your state to advance a candidate.

the US system has safeguards to protect minority positions. the rural areas would get buttfucked even harder than they are now without the EC.

>not a trump voter

>the result is some people being completely disenfranchised.

That's how the entire middle of the country would feel if New York and California decided every election.

3 million illegal aliens voted for her

and she still lost

lmao @ her "life"

You're not the problem because you didn't vote, you're the problem because you're stupid.

...

the point of abolishing the EC is to remove state level winner-take-all voting. the only majority that should matter is the country as a whole.
this image is garbage. population density. just because half of americans choose to live in certain places doesn't mean they shouldn't get half of the voting power. 1:1 across the board. The simple fact is the EC gives more power to some, and less to others. It doesn't matter who is getting more/less, it should be equal.

It would still be a disgrace if we turned our back on what all our farmers etc from rural america want. Entire states would never have representation.

But why should that matter?
Just because the population density is lower, why should they have their votes weighed higher?
This doesn't give a comprehensive reason. Why should the amount of land mass enter the equation?

Now you're getting into opinion territory. While I agree with you, as I live in corn territory, our opinions shouldn't matter for this decision.

Yes, the Winner take all system is fucked up when one candidate can win the popular vote yet lost by 58 electoral votes.

No the problem is that you had the "choice" between a corupted and a coruptor i think the best that you could about that

That's an opinion too of course. And opinions are all we and to an extent even the founding fathers who put this system in place can have.

The founding fathers put into place a system that didn't bias certain states. The EC weighting system was added much later.

>the point of abolishing the EC is to remove state level winner-take-all voting. the only majority that should matter is the country as a whole.
You realize the Electoral College doesn't have to be winner-take-all, right? You could keep the EC and have proportional electors awarded.

Direct election of president is idiotic and gives even more weight to cities and states with large populations, particularly the wealthy/elite.

The problem is that voter turnout for Hillary in states where Trump won was pathetic. Obama was able to motivate far more people to the poles for his elections. Hillary didn't inspire anything but scorn, so far fewer voters gave enough of a shit to show up.

The latinos didn't rise up. The blacks didn't have any kind of record turn out either. I do wonder if Bernie could have at least swayed some of Trump's white working class.

The system makes sense, considering the country actually a federation of sovereign states. States vote based on their people, proportional to national population.

democratic turnout was far less. it's not arrogant, it's numbers.

It doesn't give any weight to anyone, that is the point. Also, the wealthy/elite make up a very small part of the population.

>. The EC weighting system was added much later.
It was in the original Constitution. It was intentionally designed to based on representation in Congress, which is allotted proportionally based on population plus two senators for each state.

>Direct election doesn't give any weight to anyone

you're an idiot

Well why don't we take it even further and give extra weight to black, hispanic, and asian votes, because they're minorities.

>That's how the entire middle of the country would feel if New York and California decided every election
>That's how the entire population of minorities would feel if whites decided every election

The electoral college is bullshit because the electors always choose the state majority anyway, they would get slaughtered by their parties if they voted the other way

The framers feared a direct democracy overriding the constitutional rights of others. It's described in the federalist papers and also explains why we need a 2/3rd votes to get things done.

It's also why you hear "..and to the Republic" instead of democracy, because it's not a direct one. It's possible we could change the framing of government if we had 2/3rds vote. We did during Obama's first term in office, they were the overwhelming majority for a time, and Obama while people did say Obama made no promise, he actually did. His words were: "to challenge the system". Of course, I keep hearing Republicans blocking everything, but no one addressed his first term where he did have 2/3rds of his party in office.

I don't know what to think of it. I guess if you want direct democracy, you won't find it here. But much of it is explained here:

factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

>Direct election of president is idiotic and gives even more weight to cities and states with large populations

You mean it gives weight to a majority of the population as opposed to a minority?

The EC makes a lot of sense in the US w.r.t. the roles of the states in the federation, as very explicitly explained in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton et al.

That's a pretty shit analogy buddy. We don't ask our black population to produce our massive dairy demands without representation.

Sources, I'd like to be proven wrong on this.
Insults are the lowest form of argument broseph

shoulda voted stein u cunt

That's how the world works. In America there's more urban and suburban people that rural people, more whites than blacks or hispanics or asians, and more middle class than rich

Shit, you're right. Reps plus senators. Ok then.

>Sources, I'd like to be proven wrong on this.
US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3 is superseded by Amendment 12

Thanks bro. Found that myself as well. Never saw the bit about senators.

you know you niggers could read up on some shit before you start shitposting?

fuck the wiki articles are pretty clear and point you to the right sources, e.g. Federalist papers, for understanding why direct election doesn't occur.

I read all the time, but no one can be expected to know anything. I appreciate the chance to learn, and appreciate the user who corrected me.

*everything. not anything.

And I'm saying that's a bullshit reason, because there's plenty of other majority/minority situations that aren't protected the same way rural/urban is

People can't name more than three of their constitutional rights, you expect them to read the federalist papers? That's like telling Christians to read their Bible from start to end. You need to realize what you're able to do is asking for too much from others. If things don't go their way then they want to abolish what stood in their way, rules and reason be damned.

Think its safe to assume you aren't old enough to vote, thats why you didn't vote.

>study economics and government
>telling someone to do something trump has never done

The 1% won pretty handily, lol.

>agnostic
>read the bible
>old testament was kickass, new was garbage
>mfw i'm a jew i guess

>thinking a billion dollar business man has never studied economics and government

You have two problems, I think. The first is that you're under the illusion that you live in a direct democracy and not in a federal republic. The second is that you don't understand how a federal republic works and intends to distribute power.

>quads of truth

True, but 30 years ago, California was as red as texas. States always change and if too many people have your sentiment, Cali could easily be a battleground state

No dumbass, the EC has always been the number of representatives a state has in the senate and house. This was put in place specifically to give states with lower populations more power in the government, or depending on your interpretation an equal say in the government.

Your problem is that you believe the USA is one government. In actuality wee are comprised of 50 different governments deciding together on the leader of the federal government. This is why each state is winner take all, the citizens of each of the 50 governments vote on who they think the leader should be.
If you want each state to have equal or closer to equal opinions then redistribute the population to be equal between all states. This will force each state to have equal representation and equal numbers of EC votes.

>and apparently im the problem for not voting, but I live in california which is a state that Hillary won for electoral votes.
yes, you are the problem. If more people voted for our Lord and Savior Trump, maybe the bitch wouldn't have won in California either.

I know that now, dick. Read more thread sometime

I truly believe Bernie could have won. He might not have, but at least he was a passionate, sincere candidate with buckets of charisma. Hillary was just power-hungry. Bernie made the mistake of playing fair, and the DNC pooched him hard.

No you're right. Once a state has a majority, all other voters are useless.

What do you think about the Talmud? Have you read it? Because Judaism does continue after Christ, maybe you know this.

Glad you posted this. It helps further rational discourse and adds depth.

Well, you're not voting for just the presidency. There are several other very important amendments and other things, the president is just a part of the ballot. For example, commercial marijuana was made legal because enough people voted for that during the election. So really, the people make a lot of choices they don't know they can make

>States always change and if too many people have your sentiment, Cali could easily be a battleground state
This is what critics of the EC don't understand. It is way fucking easier to change a state than it is to play national-scale politics.

I'd argue that Democrats and third-party don't understand this anymore either. Everybody wants to win the big, high profile elections instead of doing the hard work of governing states and municipalities.

Conservatives have spent 40+ years playing small ball and now they own most electoral precincts in the country. People need to look to their example instead of trying to mount a fool's crusade to amend the Constitution to drop the Electoral College.

Welcome to the electoral college.

We need to get rid of the electoral college.
Fuck the smaller states!

>the only majority that should matter is the country as a whole.

This is the only opinion I see around here. The president isn't acting for "the people in the country as a whole", he is also negotiating treaties, which affect the nation as a collection of states, and many other similar activities.

No, you're right. It's those people's fault for not going out to vote.

Kinda OP, but at least you're not a Republican in CA or trying to vote Dem in a heavily red state.

Winner takes all for the electorals in most states. Electoral votes>popular vote. If you're in a state that is guaranteed to vote one way but you don't vote with it then your vote basically doesn't exist right now. Pretty sure a candidate can seriously win by one vote and take all 55 electoral votes your state has. That applies to all other states but 2, Nebraska and Maine.

The way I'd like to see it it the total number of electoral votes doubled and appropriately distributed and then mandate they must reflect popular vote as closely as possible by state.

That way it does actually matter AND you get better representation out of it. might also kill the idea of the swing state. In other words In consistently red Idaho Hillary would have gotten one electoral vote while trump Got 3. In consistently blue CA trump should have gotten 17 while Hillary would have taken 38. Third parties would also actually get electoral votes out of it. After doing that make it so whoever gets the most wins 270 or no.

The fun part is doing it this way still makes repeat voters (cheaters) basically worthless unless you get a fuckton of them.

Proper representation of as many Americans as possible is more important than winning.

>The president isn't acting for "the people in the country as a whole"
What? The president is the head of the executive branch of government. His job is execute and enforce federal law.

The president is currently overpowered though. Congress should rein in the office. Maybe the GOP will grow the nuts to do so during Trump.

I don't think the problem is your vote in particular, over a hundred million people did not vote. I can see why you choosed not to vote but it's really fucking retarded to defend your decision on the base that it would not matter. To me, and whoever else consider voting a duty, your guilt is escaping the democratic process, so the outcome of the election is irrelevant

>Pretty sure a candidate can seriously win by one vote and take all 55 electoral votes your state has.
Individual states decide how electoral votes are apportioned.

>Discredits an argument because it's an opinion

>Rebuttal with his own opinion

I am fully aware that it's a federal republic and not a direct democracy, and how a federal republic works. There is nothing in the constitution that says that all of a states electors go to the majority vote in that state. The electors are there to stop the people from electing a threat to the country. What the electoral college has become, is bullshit. It gives more weight to those areas with lower population density, and electors won't vote against their party anyway

If you want your vote to matter live in a swing state, vote with your party in a state it's guaranteed to win, or vote third party while enough others do if you live in one of those guaranteed states and don't like the usual winner.

For third parties 5% popular vote actually matters.

This will still cause candidates to only care about only cities.

The problem is all but two of them roll winner takes all. They shouldn't even have a choice is what I want. As far as my thoughts on this are concerned it MUST reflect popular vote.

Ah yes California, a state that pays for most of the flyover states. We know nothing about economics. Please help us.

That's not why the electoral college was created. It was created so that the electors can keep a majority of idiots from voting in someone who's a threat

>There is nothing in the constitution that says that all of a states electors go to the majority vote in that state
You're right, but that is decided solely by the individual states and not at a federal level. There's absolutely no reason why your state, or any other, couldn't decided to apportion electoral votes differently. That's not a flaw in the EC.

>electors won't vote against their party anyway
The emerge of regular faithless electors would be the death knell of the republic.

>As far as my thoughts on this are concerned it MUST reflect popular vote.
EC does reflect the popular vote. The candidate with the most votes gets the electors, excepting two states.

It's not as if the EC is independent of the popular vote.

And there you have proof.
Amazing how 50% of the country makes up that 1% that won.

Better than only caring about a handful of states. Would shake up the whole system. Currently there is zero value in candidates campaigning in places they know they'd for sure lose with winner takes all.

According to the Constitution, the electoral college actually has the authority to ignore the people's vote I think. I know it won't happen, but how quickly would the E.C. be abolished if they elected Hillary out of fucking nowhere?

The electoral collge was made for this exact reason.
You are just mad because it didn't go your way and you are a child used to getting everything it wants.
If the election was ment to be won by the popular vote then it would be. But it isn't and it wasn't and it never will be.
Cry more

Didn't read thread but you can still vote for state and local elections and make a difference. Many counties are red if you want to change them blue you need to vote.

It's a good thing that happened to the dems. Dumpster fire defeat will cause them to pull their heads out of their corporate donors asses and run progressive policies.

Hope the anti establishment Trump fans will realize they were fooled again with the people Trump is bringing into the whitehouse. Hopefully not too much damage will be done to the environment over these next 4 years. We will see.

Go vote next time.

>As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

That is literally why the electors are there, so that they can be faithless if necessary

States apportioning electoral votes as a group isn't a direct part of the electoral college, but it's definitely relevant, and it's the part people want gone

nah fam you good
however you're part of the problem that contributed to Trump not completely humiliating her

He would have because he offered change.

>electoral college actually has the authority to ignore the people's vote I think
No. There's just no requirement that the vote with the popular vote. That's not the same as having authority to ignore.

Again, the individual states decide how electors are elected and the rules of their conduct (pledged or not). If you don't like that your state's electors are not apportioned to the state popular vote, lobby to have your state laws changed.

>That is literally why the electors are there, so that they can be faithless if necessary
Yeah, but you don't want faithless electors as a regular practice. It would destabilize the entire system. Outside the extraordinary, faithless electors should be (and are) exceedingly rare.

>States apportioning electoral votes as a group isn't a direct part of the electoral college, but it's definitely relevant, and it's the part people want gone
Fine, but that happens because of individual state laws, not the constitution. That's the whole point of our federal system. The states should decide that.

At the expense of turning our backs on what the majority of Americans in major cities want? Go fuck yourself. There's no winning here.

>There's no winning here.
There is. You just have to balance the interests of the masses, regions, and states in the process so that majority expresses its will without running amuck and trampling everyone else.

We do this with the Electoral College.

Kek.
>hur-dur, California is a waste! Loser people and stupid hippies!
Oh, and 6th largest economy in the world.

People forget about that.

Winner takes all that 48/50 states use does not reflect popular vote appropriately. It means just under half of a state's votes could be for a specific candidate but that candidate gets zero electoral votes. Popular vote should not mean you take it all, it should mean you take more electoral votes than the one who "lost" but the other guy still gets the votes the minority cast to him. Political minorities get fucked in the pooper across the board.

Example election, 5 million votes flat.

If I were to get 2,495,000 (49.9%) but my competitor got 2,505,000 (50.1%) then unless a change is made on the spot I get zero electoral votes in that state and the people who supported me effectively have zero representation because my competitor just got 100% of the take. How it should work is we split the electoral votes and my competitor gets the odd vote assuming the number of votes available is an odd number.

If I'm running Republican and the state is California or any other almost always blue state (or vice versa) you can bet your ass they won't change shit for me or my half of the state's worth of supporters. I should be taking 27 votes while my competitor takes 28 but I instead get zero because !winner takes all! is a thing.

Take away the state's ability to choose how they are allotted and force them to split the votes along popular vote forcing accurate representation of the nation.