Someone explain why we use the shitty electoral college system

Someone explain why we use the shitty electoral college system.

cause democracy is not that good

To prevent the majority from bullying the minority

Even if you think some votes should hold more weight than others, the electoral college seemingly just adds randomness based on location of voters. There isn't really any method to the madness.

See

Because it allows less populated rural states to be more represented. Empires fall when only cities are considered because of their population, because cities don't feed themselves. Rural farmland is more important to the continued success of a country than it's relative population would suggest, and a direct popular vote thus under represents their interests.

Additionally, the electoral college has the responsibility to refuse to elect someone who wins the votes "illegitimately." What that constitutes is unfortunately not specified. Should a candidate who wins the election be denied presidency if he ran on a platform of numerous unconstitutional promises? If he, as the leader of the combined armed forces of the country, refuses to listen to his generals or even show up to his daily briefings? If he immediately backtracks on the promises he made to win the vote, to the point that it becomes clear immediately that he never intended to keep them and was simply lying for votes? If he tries to turn a democratic republic into his personal family dynasty? None of these questions are answered by the electoral college foundation.

I think the best solution is to keep the EC, but have each state appoint them proportionately. If your state has 10 EC votes and the vote is split 60-40, one candidate gets 6 and the other 4. This allows rural states the representation they need while also representing the votes and interests of minority voters (as in political minorities, not ethnic ones). There is absolutely no point to voting for a president if you live in Texas or California. Those states will go Red and Blue respectively, no matter what you do. But if your vote could swing one EC vote? Then your voice matters again.

Spliting the ec by percentage would be the same popular vote, so there would be no reason to talk to hayseeds. Main point of ec is to make politicans pay attention to farms ever once in a while. Beyond that you were spot on

Actually, some states do the Electors proportionately, based on popular vote. The Constitution leaves that decision to the individual states.

Other than that, 10/10 post. Very well said.

No, because they would still have EC state by state. So rural states would still be represented more than their relative population than more urbanized ones. It wouldn't be the same as a national popular vote.

fuck off liberal sjwthe number of votes is house of representatives + senate members for that state
ohio has 18 votes, 16 representatives, 2 senate for example

Because a country ruled by tree or four cities would fall apart

In countries with a popular vote system, it's not true that politicians only campaign in the 2 or 3 largest cities. They campaign everywhere. I mean, 95% of Americans don't live in NYC or LA or Chicago.

Right now, it's basically Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado and Wisconsin that are deciding the elections. Is that fair?

OP, in your example someone wins the election with 25% of the vote. But you are forgetting that if the vote is more spread out across hundreds of candidates, theoretically someone could win with only 1% of the votes. Or with 2 votes in total, if everyone else gets 1 vote. Welcome to democracy.

It would force the margins of "popular vote = president" much closer than the current system does. It just seems so stupid that you can win the presidency with less than a third of the nation voting for you in a two party race.

This makes sense only if you agree with the idea that rural states are more important to the well being of the country. If high population density states voted with the best interest of the nation, it seems silly that they shouldn't have a vote equal to the rest of the nation.

So I guess that just means people are under the impression that the densely populated states are not voting for the best interests of the nation and are out of touch?

Because the house seats are based on the population of the state duh

>doesnt realize the states are independent self governing authorities that agree to give certain authorities to a federal entity.

>>So I guess that just means people are under the impression that the densely populated states are not voting for the best interests of the nation and are out of touch?

Funding is a zero-sum game. We don't have unlimited funding, so paying for something I want in my state necessitates someone else somewhere else being unable to pay for what they want in their state. The idea that a significant portion of the population, let alone a majority, would vote against their own desires in favor of the needs of people they have and will never meet is optimistic and completely against any historical precedent.

This.

Sorry libs.

I'm liberal myself and I'll shamelessly quote my Poli sci education on you.

You're hugely missing the picture if you think this is unfair or that trump voters are stupid or racist.

You got so involved in protecting the "disenfranchised" that you turned a blind eye to the rural people's well being.

They got really pissed off what with the lost jobs and their way of life falling apart and when they complained you jumped on them and screamed white privilege in their can't feed their family faces.

The fuck did you think they were going to do?

"But we're more educated."

Yes. Liberal policies work great for the more educated. That's the idea. Doesn't help the working class much though.

I hold that trump is a menace and hes going to fuck everybody over, but noone should be surprised.

Easier to cheat.
Next question...

>"...ruled by tree..."
Couldn't be any worse than Trump...

Bow before your new leader....

He is groot