Hillary lost by 74 votes

Hillary lost by 74 votes

Britney looked great back then, didn't she...?

she sure did

trump won by 74

Yeah.
Electoral college is not rational.
But it is how we operate.
Both sides of the isle have been hosed by it.
Whining about it here will never change it.
If you want to change things, get involved with whichever side you think is worth your time.
You know. Like a useful human being.

Who's whining, faggot? I'm gloating.

The electoral college is completely rational. It keeps small states from being automatically blow the fuck out by bigger states with larger populations.

...

...

AGAIN... what does this have to do with masturbation???

The electoral college is fine. the US decided to have strong federalism and they ran with it. The issue is that out of 350 million people we had to pick between those two knuckleheads.

yes, because where you live should totally control how much your vote counts for.

Fuck Hillary

Have you found me

Hillary should have lost three more vote to Bernie but they were not allowed to vote their conscience.

What is worse is that it wasn't just choosing between those two knuckleheads. The other options weren't all that great either. The top contenders for the right were mediocre, and the top lefties were bad too. Just an all around shitty election cycle. Hell, I voted for Trump just because I thought I'd like his Supreme Court appointments more than HRC's.

It's OK, we all know you're smarter than the founders.

...

the founders agreed to it because it was the only way to get the rural states in, not because they believed it was fundamentally fair that your vote counts for more than mine because you live in bumfuck nowhere and i live in nyc

And why was it important that the concession be made?

because it was more important to form the country to begin with than worry at that time about everyone in it being equal; hence things like the 3/5ths compromise
i'm saying that the notion of your living location giving you more of a vote is just as absurd as being given less of a vote under that. you disagree, and probably think black votes should still count as less too

because all the redneck states are a bunch of fucking whiny babies.

so different. one time mattered to him personally. and he's not mentally equipped to know the difference. be fair

really good point. if you live in highly populated areas, your vote should matter less. that should be obvious to everyone.

Nice straw man combined with the race card. Amazing intellectual here.
I'm not the one crying.

they are two reasons for saying that one persons vote should count for more than someone elses

both were around when the constitution was made

one is gone today, because we've realized race isn't ok to deny equal voting rights. why should the location of your house be? that we've eliminated one category absolutely bears on your argument re: what the founders said.

Are you not ?
Do you disagree with it being important to form the country? Do you believe it is not important to maintain the country?

This.

It prevents "tyranny of the majority" by preventing these intellectual bubbles forming in these urban cities taking over the country.

it was important to form the country, but like the 3/5ths compromise, is no longer appropriate now.

now, where you live matters far less than it did then. the only reason to allow it to begin with was to form the country, it wasn't even appropriate then for any reason other than that.

So you believe that state balance of power should have only mattered long enough to trap lower populated states into a binding agreement which you would then change to mean they no longer have the balance of power which they agreed to. I see no way of making that a reasonable mode of thought. Direct democracy could be functional, but not under the conditions it took to form, nor to maintain the USA.

so explain how the voting compromise with blacks wasn't also a trap of the same principle?

direct democracy is people voting on issues. i don't favor that. i do favor my vote on our president not counting for less because i live in a city. don't oppose the house/senate structure either, though gerrymandering should have been ruled flatly unconstitutional decades ago

it was (and still is) designed as incentive for states to join and stay in the union. smaller (population) states would have little to no say over their governing body without the electoral college. combined with the modern pro-federal government view of democrats it would result in elections where they have virtually no say in. the (democrat) politician would limit the power of their own (state) governments while designing policies that completely ignore the needs of rural families.

if you want a policy that is truly fair, give states with the highest GDP the most votes, and vice-versa. it only makes sense that the sates paying the most in federal tax dollars get the most say in the federal government.

It's also useful when it comes to recounts. You only have to redo a few counties, not the whole country. It's not the most intuitive, but it's actually a rational system.

The Founding Fathers decided on strong federalism, but Teddy, other presidents, and supreme court decisions laid waste to the concept and the U.S. now only has a few shreds of states' rights left.

Poor Puerto Rico. They're so traumatized by not having any vote in the presidential election that they've repeatedly decided to remain a territory.

I think I voted for a 6th party candidate, and that's only because there wasn't a 7th party.

Wow, you're fucking racist

You do realize the 3/5ths wasn't about giving blacks a vote, right? It was about the balance of power and a large point of contention leading to a war you probably heard about. If you count war as a part of reasonable mode of thought, I don't really know what else can be discussed at that point.

she's a good lookin woman

you're still dancing around the core issue: why should rural voters have more of a say? why are their needs more important than those of people in cities? they're NOT. it doesn't matter that their interests aren't represented to their liking, their interests should be represented no more or less than someone elses interest just because they're in a rural area. giving them more of a voice leads to just the opposite, their needs are overrepresented on a per capita basis because their vote counts for more. that is not a fair system no matter how much you cry that equal representation is unfair because then the minority interest couldn't dictate terms to the majority.

and you suggestion would lead to the big blue states having even more of a voice than my suggestion would, most of the tax dollars come from ny and ca.

no i'm the one saying that we're all equal, you mean the other guy

it was specifically to say that a slave counted as 3/5ths of a person, same basic principle.

Yes, counted as population, giving extra weight to the voters in those states, not giving that specific population a vote. The push to change that agreement was a large point of contention leading to war. So are you arguing that war is a part of reasonable mode of thought? That is what happens when reasonable mode of thought breaks down.

Are you fucking retarded. Puerto Rico's not a state because being a state would raise taxes and worse their economy.

What evidence do you even have?

>people cant change their opinions over 4 years

yes that's the point, the electoral college doesn't give a specific person more of a vote officially, it changes the elector/population ratio, just as the 3/5ths compromise did.

are you saying that our system is just fine because we haven't fought a war to overturn it yet?

Are you really so stupid you can't recognize blatant sarcasm?

>no i'm the one saying that we're all equal, you mean the other guy
Nope, I meant you. You're a typical race-baiter, using false and preemptive claims of racism to attack people. You're using black people as a shield and a weapon, instead of treating them as humans.

I'm saying our system is what it needs to be in that regard, and for good reason.

and i'm saying that reason is just as antiquated as the one i'm comparing it to, and that where you live should no longer determine your vote weight in electors per capita

I would.

Out of curiosity, are those in favor of abolishing the electoral college also in favor of abolishing the House and Senate? A vote for a Representative in Rhode Island is worth about twice as much as a vote for a Representative in Montana, and it's much worse in the Senate.

SSM only got 49% yes vote after you count the 25% of people that didn't vote overall.

And you have yet to address your reason for this other than the date of origin of the agreement, which makes zero sense. What makes it not important now, yet important then?

>Hillary lost by 74 votes

Study this map. Figure it out.

and you've yet to articulate a reason that challenges my principle argument, other than that it (disputably) had some validity at time of enactment

>you're still dancing around the core issue: why should rural voters have more of a say? why are their needs more important than those of people in cities? they're NOT. it doesn't matter that their interests aren't represented to their liking, their interests should be represented no more or less than someone elses interest just because they're in a rural area. giving them more of a voice leads to just the opposite, their needs are overrepresented on a per capita basis because their vote counts for more. that is not a fair system no matter how much you cry that equal representation is unfair because then the minority interest couldn't dictate terms to the majority.

study this map and figure out the objection

Are you one of those people that think the president should be elected by popular vote because if you are you might be retarded

I answered this by asking why you believe it was important to begin with. You said to form the country. I said it is just as important to maintain the country. You say you don't think so, and try to expand on this by mentioning another power balance which led to war when pushed against, which I expressly pointed out as being a breakdown in reason. So your argument is that war to change that agreement on the formation of the power structure of the USA is justified in your opinion, by inference of your chosen example. I am saying I disagree. I am not dancing around anything. I am attempting to get you to admit to what you are inferring or to clarify your point so you stop running around in circles.

Sounds like dogshit. Clinton lost, snowflake.

Donald J. Trump is President. Hillary Clinton is an unemployed miserable power-hungry cunt.

it doesn't have to be by direct popular vote, but the electors per person must be the same in all states.

your point about war is completely invalid. that one point took a war to change has precisely zero bearing on whether it is just, or even should be changed. it's an irrelevant argument. we changed a bunch of other things without a war.

you haven't said WHY you think it's important to maintaining the country in the present day, other than the bare assertion that rural voices should count more just because they should.
that you think i'm the one making a circular argument is silly.

trump won under a system he himself denounced as unfair and bad for democracy.

>mfw the whole election is one giant popularity contest, yet the popularity vote suddenly becomes unimportant

Ok then every election would be won by winning big cities where there is huge population density. I'm not a fan of letting people in California have a huge say in who becomes president

The top contenders for the right were disastrous. The only good contender for the election was Bernie Sanders and he got hosed because the democratic party was getting high off the smell of their own farts after hosting a black man as president and thought they could do whatever they wanted for the sake of doing it rather than actually governing the country. They were becoming pristine portrayals of liberal douchebag.

The republican party has a similar issue in that they exist to make the few rich people richer and have no one who is both qualified to govern AND is willing to be a puppet.

>balance of power
That should be pretty obvious point. If you wish to change that, you would have to change how the entire government functions because a few hundred square miles of land could dictate what everyone in the rest of the country would have to do, and their governments would essentially become fiefs. You not being able to see that as the point that has been made has gone from silly to absurd.

>but the electors per person must be the same in all states

Not an American. This is not the case already? The fuck is wrong with you retards? I mean, it's no secret that you kept harping on about democracy without knowing jack shit about it forever, but that's just plain stupid.

you made a good point and then drowned it with bullshit.

learn how to be quiet, sometimes.

Sucks to be stuck in a democracy where every vote should count, huh?

Just learn to ignore the obvious sarcastic strawmen and focus on the important stuff.

Ill take the bait! Yes she did, but the concept that my vote living in a rural state means more than the vote of someone living in new york or california due to the electorial system is absurd. The very system itself was put into place to avoid the election of power hungry demagogues and the sysytem has obviously failed regardless of who you voted for and why in this election. Just like everything else we should move forward and evolve our political systems. Considering the average citizen has a marginally higher IQ than the founding fathers its about time.

love how Americans focus on being offended on lesser points and assuming moral superiority in order to avoid the actual issue

are you fucking serious right now, how deluded do you have to be to make this post

the left had Jim Webb. That's it. Bernie Sanders is a fucking joke who appeals to lazy young people who know nothing about how the world works.

The right had a solid line up because they had like 20 fucking candidates. Kasich would've been good. Rubio would've been "fine." There were a few other literally whos that didn't make it into relevancy that would've been fine. I think it's fucking hilarious that you talk about being qualified to govern then list fucking Bernie Sanders, a Marx wannabe who is a senator from fucking VERMONT as someone who is capable of running a country. Mr. "I want to make college free" Mr. "you don't know what it means to be poor when you're white, please vote for me black people" Mr. "I never held a job longer than a few months until I figured out I can sucker idiots into voting for me in a who cares state smack dab in the middle of fucking who gives a shit" Sanders

but you're argument is that it's land that matters and not people. that one person should have a larger voice because of land.
that land occupied by fewer people has a larger voice than land occupied by more people is unfair, because land doesn't matter, people do.
i see your point, but value people themselves, not people based on where they live.
i know you disagree.

no it's not the case. that's what this argument is about.

>Considering the average citizen has a marginally higher IQ than the founding fathers its about time

Making some very big assumptions there, lad.

yes im aware of my typo and know the difference.

Okay, if the problem is power hungry demagogues, why obsess about the electoral college? At best, it's completely orthogonal to the real issues.

>trump won under a system he himself denounced as unfair and bad for democracy.

Oh. Well. It's her turn, right, so we'd better ask President Trump to step down so that Hillary can finally get the power she's been desperately seeking since the early 70s. It's only fair, right? And Hillary would be so, so fair to everyone, right? Rainbow faggotry would be the law of the land.

Why are you assuming that the founders were smart?

All this picture does is bring attention to the fact that, since manifest destiny came into play and we settled the entirety of the landmass that is US soil, a few select regions are paying for an entire MASSIVE country.

We are not a country but a group of united states. When it was the 13 colonies, all 13 colonies were profitable. Now, it is not so. While we bitch about the dense population of Cali, they could secede and gain economic strength while most states would suffer without help from the federal government.

New York is a port, Michigan is an industrial powerhouse, Texas is an agricultural and industrial powerhouse and so on and so forth with only a select few states being significant in existence outside of those blue zones by providing a unique resource for the overall picture. While it might upset someone out in bumfuck minnesota that Cali's political ideas mean more than theirs, the state of California means more than them.

The notion of giving the little people a voice is all nice and poetic, but they are little people. Their voices should also be little.

yup, hillary clinton was an absolutely terrible person and candidate. the 2nd worst candidate in all of history i'd say. definitely should have gone to prison.

but trump was *the* worst candidate, also belongs in prison (preferably the same cell as clinton) and GOP policies are completely fucking this country 100x more any policy that effects fag rights

>Bernie Sanders is a fucking joke who appeals to lazy young people who know nothing about how the world works.

Lol. I work two jobs to pay my rent and I still loves me some Bernie.

Both matter as a result of the population distribution and political structure of the country. Would it be possible to change that? Perhaps, but you would be upsetting pretty much every established structure of the country. Good luck with that without war.

The founders owned humans and considered people like you donkey-brained scum who arent worthy of voting. Fuck the founders.

Federalist papers are a good read to hear the true elitist bullshit of these fucks

California would go bankrupt in a matter of years if they were to secede.

Also, being smart enough to game the system and not have to work is not a drawback.

I know a scumbag right now at an ivy league college who abuses healthcare to pay for cosmetic surgeries, actively cheats in his courses and I can't blame him one bit. You get what you want through the means in which you find yourself willing to get them.

Nah. Lol.

people living in rural areas and people in cities do both matter. exactly as much. but not more.

>The founders owned humans and considered people like you donkey-brained scum who aren't worthy of voting
The popular vote was the worst thing to happen to this country, imo. Its initiation is marked by the election of Andrew Jackson, so come the fuck on.

You should not have the right to vote on things so important unless you are educated.

Good post.
It's you who doesn't have a clue about how the world works, and sadly, people like you only tend to realise when it's too late.

Bro do alittle research on resources wealth,,food weapons. New york city and California Literally produce less then 5 percent of the food for the country. 95 percent of all the food is from the middle and eastern states. Guns and other weapons everywhere else. The army,,,the soldiers. Kansas alone has the biggest military base and recruitment center. Colorado has the strongest air defense. Texas Produces 15 percent of the countries food alone and has 2 of the largest navel Bases. If Blue states and red states turned on ejother. New york and Cali would starve off in just a couple weeks and would be blockcaded in. Not to mention everything i just said was done in a study done by democrates and republicans. Hillarys campain manager did a study like this years ago and said he wouldn't want to piss off the red states in a civil war lol. Red states have the guns the food and we dominate the military 75/25. Bro new york and cali would get rekt by the rest of the united states. We would have u weak make up wearing libs surrounded in days lol. Think those gangsters and Trannies are gona do shit lol? When the rest of the states have the most soldiers and gun experience and control all the food. New york literally has all its food shipped to them via every other state. Even most of the sea food doesn't come in any harbors in new york lol. U DONT KNOW Shit.

This. Cali by itself can be considered the 6th lagest economy in the world. We could slap nearly 8+ states together and still not have the economic importance of Cali or New York. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, even moreso that we know for a fact that the rural areas are less exposed to external influences, cultures, and ideas than their coastal counterparts. We know that our inner states are ideallistically and economically backwards so why should a minority of the population dictate the majority?

Yes. Even if California could maintain the vast majority of agreements they have with other states and federal organization somehow while decreasing spending and increasing production, they would have a rough period of decades at the least.

2nd,,,,u dont have to do a fucking study to know that new york and cali dont have the food or military to survive against the other states. U truely are a moron. Its common sense.

No. Their only economic hindrance is the amount of human trashbags that they support via welfare.

Tourism, agriculture, ports, energy.... Cali has it all except for fresh water.

>military
user, pls.

dude, Cali is an agricultural marvel. there are dozens of crops that would not exist on the american scheme if not for Cali.

And then you go on to mention military as it that means anything. While we may be on the subject of outlandish hypothetical, if Cali were to become its own state, the rest of the US would be sucking its dick to have it as an economic ally, which comes with martial security.

All you're suggesting is war with Cali to re-secure its hilariously powerful economic value, which serves my point and not yours.

solvency by itself is a bad statistic, user.

So the only thing keeping the U.S. solvent is oil,. from Bakken to Alaska?

yeah go ahead and tell me about how spending trillions of dollars paying for everyone's college is a good idea my dude

Solvency is a very relevant, and why the U.S. as a whole is fucked

Because education never ever had a return on investment, ever.

It's a good idea because Bernie will wave a magic wand and make all that debt go away!