Can a conservative help me out here?

Can a conservative help me out here?

So I hear the argument a lot that the electoral college is necessary because of the densely populated, predominantly liberal cities. Without the EC, all of the voters in the rural areas (typically conservatives) would just be outnumbered by LA, NY, etc.

But if the above is true? Then how come all Republican presidents between 1888 and 2000 won the popular vote? Isn't that evidence that republican/rural voters have enough manpower to outnumber Democrats in the popular vote?

Like, if George HW could get more Americans to vote for him, why did George W and Trump need the EC to help make the election "fair?"

Genuinely curious about this.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
youtube.com/channel/UCG0p_ZUF3YDLNOwiJFr-N4Q
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/grandma-shocking-ohio-heroin-picture-sentenced-jail-n648946
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>redditors who think debating politics means just mentioning candidates over and over like they are memes

Post this on Sup Forums not Sup Forums lmfao

Exponentially growing urban centers as well as a sharp increase in progressivism that has also increased exponentially since blacks got the vote.

If you want rid of the EC, kill all the niggers.

THE WAILING OF THE JEW MEDIA IS LIKE MUSIC.

CLINTON FAILED, AND MISERABLY.

GOOD TRIUMPHED.

TRUMP 2020

Do you think republican candidates will ever get the popular vote if those trends continue? Bush got the popular vote in 04, so it was at least still possible 13 years ago.

Presidential elections are decided by shockingly small numbers of very very very dumb people

You know political TV campaign ads? Ever wonder what kind of slope-headed trog they are targeted towards?

80,000 voters in the right places is all it took to elect Trump. Like, literally a football stadium.

Republicans used to win California. Dat dere is some votes, friend.

They don't need the EC to make an election fair. Most states don't vote overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate - the average popular vote is roughly 40/60 or 45/55 in favor toward one party, even in states with large cities. And often it's closer than that. So it's not like the cities would greatly outweigh rural areas in favor of a certain party, since the popular vote is usually still very close.
The electoral college wasn't even put in place to protect rural areas. It was far too cumbersome and open to fraud to try and tally all the votes from every province with 18th century means of travel and communication, so the electoral college was put in place to simplify it.
And even if, hypothetically, rural voters would be outnumbered by city voters in presidential elections and thus not be heard, that doesn't make it any more fair. You end up giving less representation to more people in cities and more representation to less people in rural areas, which is a bit undemocratic. If rural voters got outvoted, it would simply be fair. They would still have congressional representation, which carries more weight anyway.
The electoral college also allows politicians to manipulate the vote to win elections even without winning the popular vote by using a process called gerrymandering, but that's a big topic to cover. Check out CGP grey on youtube and he can explain the electoral college and gerrymandering pretty well in a few minutes.

The EC is about more than making the election fair geographically. Most people don't think about it, but the EC votes are just set up according to representatives and senators for each state. If people are against EC, they should generally be against the Senate too, because why should Wyoming have the same power as New York?

A republic is a good thing. A turd democracy is not a way to run a large country.

Um, read the 12th amendment in the constitution. Wait, you probably haven't read any of it, huh? LOL why try? Just use platitudes and slogans. Nobody cares.

Yeah I know that what I mentioned wasnt the original reason for the EC, but i was just referencing a common argument nowadays.

Personally I can't see how the EC could be democratic. Like you said, if your people get outnumbered, then you lost. Should have gotten more support. But I also recognize how retarded it is for liberals to suddenly be against it just because it inconvenienced them. Regardless of whether the argument is sound, it's moot now since it just blends in with liberals bitching about trump.

Also, with the EC, couldn't it deter certain people from voting? Like if you're a conservative living in NYC, what incentive would you have to vote? or if you were a liberal in Mississippi? Your vote is just going to get drowned out it would seem.

You're making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions here, OP.

The whole point is that it is a republic of democratic states. The electoral college means that the states choose the president, not the people. Which is a good thing because the Union of states is more important than any bloc of people anywhere within. The people have a democratic process within each state, and that's good enough.

That's a good point

It's not democratic. It's a republic.

OP here, I'm aware I'm not perfectly well informed on all the facets of the EC, which is why I was curious. The arguments for the EC i mentioned in the OP was just common shit I hear from equally informed people I talk to (which is to say none of us are experts)

You vote because your votes still matter for representatives, senators, mayors, state seats, governors, etc.

Um, sort of. Each State has its independance. It' s called sovereignty. Again, read the actual Constitution. It pretty much lays it out for you.

Sure, republicans could always get a really charismatic nominee who brings out voter enthusiasm. Republicans certainly would've won the popular vote against Hillary if they fielded someone who spouted Donald's rhetoric without offending so many people. Some people think thats a factor in his victory though, so who knows? We've basically only had one president since bush, but even with growing cities and liberalism reaching deeper we should never assume a political party is finished.

Jesus another one of these threads?

Electoral College was created long before liberal/conservative battled for dominance.

It was designed to prevent a demagogue. Clearly it failed and needs to be straight up popularity because these idiots just lobby to 3 states and can win. Even if they're a straight up con artist scumbag.

I'm actually glad Trumptard became president. it's been a complete shitshow and I can't stop laughing. bye bye Flynn

That was my entire point. Since each state is sovereign, they wouldn't join into a union if they didn't feel they had fair representation. That's why each state gets 2 senators, and why the EC exists. It's about the states. And that's a good thing for the union.

>Can a conservative help me out here?
If the situation had been reversed, with Hillary losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College, conservatives would be railing against the Electoral College 24/7 for the next 20 years. Asking them for insight is pointless.

Your logic is exactly why the presidency is not decided by a democracy.

Both parties know the rules. If the rules were different, they would have different game plans. It's very possible Trump would have had a different approach to the election if the goal was popular vote. He still may have won if that was the case. Especially since No one liked Clinton either.

The EC doesn't need to go, it just shouldn't be winner take all, like most primaries are.

It's actually the other way around. Due to the limit of 435 set in place in 1913, areas that grow are actually less represented than small populations.

For example, just take North Dakotas population and divide it by it's electoral votes. Now take Californias and do the same. Rural, Conservative voters are actually weighted higher than larger, denser, more liberal areas.

The COnstitution was a failure in the regard of making all men equal in their choice of Government.

The answer is that Trump voters ONLY agree with the electoral college when it benefits them. It has nothing to do with fairness, because if it did, then they would agree that the majority should decide the election.

Take a look at what says. Note how they mention progressivism. It's because they don't give a shit about what is right, they just care about keeping power out of the hands of "progressives."

That's not to say that all conservatives are pricks, because they aren't. But anyone who wants to argue that the popular vote is unfair is a complete retard.

Some people would yeah, of course, but not most us who understand and back the constitution. Many Trump supporters are not actual conservatives, as he certainly isn't one.

Well you tell the world the system was right when this idiot nukes everyone and mistakes their outrage for cheers. This moron is going to create world war 3. We now have to fear our allies more than terrorists.

Nigga I ain't a republican, but if you want to delve into semantics then go ahead.

Clinton did not win the popular vote

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The electoral college was and is a means of keeping power in the hands of the establishment. Andrew Jackson, the poor man's president, is a decent example of what it was meant to prevent.

Although Trump is marketed as a populist, he is very much the establishment shit bag the electoral college wants.

Sorry, but the states never would have joined if they didn't feel they'd have fair representation. You lack a basic understanding of what a republic is.

Yes, small states get a better deal as they get same senate representation and 1 minimum house seat regardless of population. They wouldn't have signed on if the larger, more populous states had all the say. And that wouldn't have been a good way to expand the union by creating new states, now would it have?

we know it's you Spicer, you fucking tool

The electoral college was created by the founding fathers and there were a lot of reasons for it. A few i can think of:

1. Maintain balance between slave states and free states.
2. Insulate the executive branch from mob rule. That is, to temper the violent swings a in opinion the mob trends to have.
3. To make the executive more beholden to states that elect them, helping better guarantee the 10th amendment.
4. A more modern benefit is campaigns are less expensive than they would be if they required national advertising.

2, 3 and 4 still very much apply. Sometimes that means pop vote doesn't match election outcome. One election cycle every now and again will affect very little in the grand scheme of things, despite sjws believing we are currently witnessing armageddon. In the long run, these next 4 to 8 years dont matter anywhere except the minds of those who hate or love trump, both for completely dubious reasons. Hardly worth amending the constitution over crybabies.

>
>It's actually the other way around. Due to the limit of 435 set in place in 1913, areas that grow are actually less represented than small populations.
>
>For example, just take North Dakotas population and divide it by it's electoral votes. Now take Californias and do the same. Rural, Conservative voters are actually weighted higher than larger, denser, more liberal areas.
>
>The COnstitution was a failure in the regard of making all men equal in their choice of Government
Good god you're a dense mother fucker. I would post that guy from the Incredibles if I knew his name to Google it.

Dual representation is the prefect system. You have representative based on population, and representation based on each state having an equal vote.

Obviously you don't want the urban centers in California, Texas, and new York making the decisions for everyone one in the country, but at the same time you have up respect majority rule. Hence the two forms of representation to balance the system.

Fuck you.
Murica

Again, doesn't matter what system was right because they were both playing the same game. If it was a different set of rules, it would have been a different campaign...and maybe the same result.

It's like saying that a team should have won the World Series because they scored more runs overall, but the rules are that you win 4 games of 7 to win the championship.

Scoring more overall runs does not equate to more overall points scored. But overall points scored in a game dictates the winner. The majority of points determines the winner.
Your analogy is fucking terrible and only serves to show that your argument is underdeveloped.

Are you retarded user? Do you want to look up what the word means real quick?

Yeah you're right. I don't agree with anyone who says that Clinton should be president rn. She lost because she fuckin blew it.

I am not curious about the EC because I think Trump is an illegitimate president, I'm just curious in general.

youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

What exactly do you think constitutes semantics, in my original post?

are you niggers arguing about the semantics of the word "semantics"

I seen a video on this and the reason for EC was for every vote to matter and not just 50 some counties out of 3000 and the founding fathers knew pure democracy would never work

...

Are you retarded or what?

In the World Series, you win 4 of 7 games to win.

You can beat a team 20-0 in a game, or even 3 games, but it does not matter if u can't win 4 games.

Not all that different from the popular vote (total points) not mattering. It's how many states (games) you win.

It's not a perfect analogy but it's pretty close, unless you're THAT dense.

States rights, we aren't a democracy, retard. Only uneducated faggots who think 1984 is happening right now and never took a civics class cares about popular vote. The popular vote is just a total of people who voted, not the actual vote.

>someone pay attention to me
>why won't anyone pay attention to me
you're pathetic

Donald Trump won the WS.

yes

The electorial college is crap. It unbalances thing. It means not all votes are equal, and that if you live in certain areas your vote counts more than in others. Fifty country boys should not have the same voting weight as 500 urban dwellers.

This. In addition, a true "democracy" would be incredibly inefficient and wouldn't be able to sustain itself

>So I hear the argument a lot that the electoral college is necessary because of the densely populated, predominantly liberal cities. Without the EC, all of the voters in the rural areas (typically conservatives) would just be outnumbered by LA, NY, etc.
bc thats not the reason why you fucking idiot.
pure democracy is evil and is mob rule

You mentioned how user uses the word progressives not only to refer to them, but that user uses the word because he doesn't give a shit about them. He didn't say he doesn't give a shit, but you're "delving into semantics" to distract from whatever the hell his original point is. You're both fags basically.

You just paid attention to him, you faggot
>you're pathetic

Stop the white genocide before its too late...
Hey guys, Like and Subscribe to my youtube channel for that win baby! youtube.com/channel/UCG0p_ZUF3YDLNOwiJFr-N4Q

Learn more about republics and why states join them, bruh. Maybe demand to tear down the "unfair" senate while you're at it, too.

I acknowledged somewhere that I know that isn't the actual reason it was invented, I was just interested in why some people say that as a reason.

that's a great analogy for the libtards who can't understand

>if you have a tournament like basketball
>one team can score 300+ points and not win 4 or 7 games
>they lose
>all you need is to win by 1
>if you win by 1 in 4 games you're the winner
>is it that hard?

At least, not in a nation this big. Also, don't forget the Vox Populi fallacy where "everyone's doing it and agrees, so it must be right/true!"

Your answer seems to suggest that you equate a 'point' with a 'game'. In baseball, a 'run' is a 'point' you fucking moron. Regardless, your post suggests that, given your lack of knowledge on which 'term' to use, you are either a foreigner or a woman, so your opinion on this subject is worthless.

pathetic samefag

It's not about quantity, it's about quality.

One hardworking law-abiding, taxpaying U.S. citizen is worth at least twenty turnip truck riding beaners, or mac-10 spraying nignogs, or 50-year old queens in assless chaps.

Have you ever been to LA or NYC? Do you really want those people choosing your president?

yes

But the 4/7 rule is exactly analogous to the majority rule. If the world series went for 100 games, then the team that won 51 games would clearly be the winner.
The electoral college is like, at the end of the series, declaring the losing team the winner because they had more overall runs, even though they lost 51 games.

Spotted the Trump voter. Please return to being a closet homosexual.

I meant not that he doesn't give a shit about progressives, but that he has identified progressives as the opposition and so wants to keep them out of power, even if it means being self-contradictory or hypocritical.

Neither, just not a faggot who relies on sports analogies to hold my interest in a subject.

You seem awful buttmad for someone who is so sure that they are right. What does that say about you?

>shows nigger loving cucked out druggie parents
>compares them to trump
>says "yes" to niggerloving cuckdom

Closet homosexuality is for redditors. If you don't understand our government, you shouldn't be commenting.

I understand how the government works, but that doesn't preclude me from disagreeing with certain aspects of how it operates.

If I (a politician ) only need to please 13 cities, I would blame everything wrong on society on everything but those 13 cities
"It's middle America's fault, they own all the land"

they're dead asshat, just like I wish you would be

Panic less and stop being so melodramatic

But the dude said he wasn't a republican. Though I guess he could still view progressives as the opposition if he was a member of the national-socialist party.

Apparently you still can't tell the difference in scoring systems. It could be argued that the winner should be the one who scores the most runs. But it's not...because a different system determines the winner.

Likewise all these people are bitching about the popular vote being the only way to fairly determine the winner. But sorry, it's not.

"Every run/vote matters". Nope.

...

People need to stop acting like Trump's win went according to plan. No one in the Trump campaign, not even Trump himself thought he was going to win. That's why Trump started whining about election fraud months before the election and why no one in the entire organization was looking at cabinet picks and such until the day after he won.
People also need to stop acting like Trump could have also won the popular vote just by having more rallies in deep blue states. You couldn't escape Trump for 18 months. No one didn't know what he was about. He reached peak support by finding the number of people who were willing to put up with sheer idiocy in exchange for their fears being acknowledged and coddled. And the same goes for Hillary. She would have needed to be a completely different person to have won the EC against Trump. She had no message and no logical appeal to her party outside of "WOMAN 4 PRESIDENT."
The problem isn't with the Electoral College, it's with the primary process and the media's massive role in elections beyond the scope of informing the public. The primary process was rigged in favor of Hillary, while the media falsely discounted Sanders' chances of victory and irresponsibly gave Trump billions of dollars of free advertising just to ensure the race would be between Hillary and Trump for the ratings such a race guaranteed. Every poll showed Sanders trouncing Trump even when Hillary was neck and neck with Trump because Bernie had much more support from white men than Hillary did, and Sanders was drawing crowds even larger than Trump's. But the media didn't want people to know that, so they said he had no chance even before the first primary was held, with many major networks and papers going so far as to lie about the delegate math.

This made me laugh. Europoors trying to figure out baseball. What is a run?

...says the guy who used a sports analogy(incorrectly) in the first place. Sure, good one, dicknose.

Let's talk about a republic. What is a republic you say? It's a union of smaller States or countries to create a larger entity capable of defending all members. The key part of a republic is that each state should retain it's autonomy. States should be able to decide many of these major issues for themselves without intrusion from federal mandates. This was essentially the foundation that was the Republican party. Support the republic and allow States self determination. This is no longer what the Republican party stands for. The Republican party has become the conservative party. They want to do as much at the federal level as the Democrats.

The republic is in serious danger. The way of life that we have enjoyed for so long is in danger. Rural States should not dictate how metropolitan areas should be governed. Vice versa metropolitan areas should not dictate how rural areas are governed. This country is too big with too many different view points. A republic makes the most sense. A democracy will be an unbridled disaster that will rip this country into shreds.

Is it anything like the crying about SNL being a bunch of meanies?

Want to make some more shit up too?

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/grandma-shocking-ohio-heroin-picture-sentenced-jail-n648946

>people in large cities don't work hard
>that's why they have much more money
Trump supporters are literally retarded.

Good point, however, a democracy is what makes a true Republic legitimate.

Jeez, tell me about it. People can't stand it when I point out basketball, soccer, hockey, football(hand egg) ect. all are variations on the same 'theme' just more or less different equipment involved. Baseball requires a higher understanding of strategy, which is why it's a 'better' game than the other sports I mentioned. Soccer, however, it a shit tier, third/fourth world sport. If I have to explain why to you, than I won't. I don't associate with your type.

Jews voted Trump, commie.

a democracy is what makes a true Republic legitimate

That kinda is the definition of a republic. It's a type of democracy