Amerifats WILL defend this

>Amerifats WILL defend this

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Look at Orange County. Surrounded by a wall of blue on all sides.

Who would've thought the places that had the most people had the most votes?

I know it's hard to imagine living on a puny island smaller than 48 of our states but that's how population density works

>Winner takes all
Some states have proportional electoral votes. Democrats will never allow that in California.

Is San Francisco beyond saving?

I don't think any republican would defend the electoral college.
Shit's fucking retarded and antiquated as FUCK.
There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't go by popular vote in modern america.

>37% of the vote
>0% of the delegates

No state is winner-take-all for the Democratic party - that's the only reason why Comrade Sanders isn't Kasich level of delegates

>implying California is a state

I think he's referring to the winner take all system

i thought obama was born in hawaii?

>Implying your country is a real country

Good idea. Lets descend into populism and simple majority rules so we can someday become a banana republic like all of our southern neighbors.

Instead of jerking off all day. Why don't you take the time to understand the purpose of the electoral college?

Why do irrelevant countries care for our politics? Don't you have a sheep to fuck or something?

Thank god I live in Orange County.

The general election is winner take all for the rare chance that you get a third or fourth party shitting around and trying to ruin the country. With this, theres almost a guarantee that someone will get the required number they need for office.

Republicans are usually the ones who do defend the electoral college. It gives rural states more relative power.

Yeah it's fucking retarded that almost all states are winner-take-all with electoral votes.

Oh well. The electoral college almost always correlates with the popular vote, so it's okay.

home states != birth states.

Clinton's home state is New York but she didn't live there until she ran for senate.
Same reason we care about the Brexit. It's interesting and it affects us.

The way to get around this is having two rounds, for the second round everyone but the top two are kicked out. They do this in other countries.

>that flag
that's primaries you dummy

>Good idea. Lets descend into populism and simple majority rules
You mean...democracy?
Sounds good.
How the fuck are you twisting it in your mind that making 1 vote equal to 1 vote is a bad thing?
As a South Carolinian my vote counts significant more than every single western state simply because my state is afforded a slightly higher electoral votes/population ratio.
We're still functioning on populism it's just unbalanced and unfair populism where votes aren't counted equally.
And that's not even getting into the fact that 49% of a state's votes can be outright ignored depending on what state you live in.
Only because they're forced to work within the system that is already in place. As long as they have to compete with winner take all monoliths like new york and california where republican votes simply don't count they have to inflate the value of republican votes elsewhere.
Ask about abolishing the electoral college altogether and they will be all for it.

>Win 51% of the country-wide votes
>Win 100% of the presidency

Amerifats will defend this

why is your county republican?

Democracy is mob rule. It's shit.

Holy shit...SUPER RARE.

Where the fug is that located? Proxy or real?

Orange hunters lean right

Did you have trouble reading my post?
Here I'll post the part you missed again:
>We're still functioning on populism it's just unbalanced and unfair populism where votes aren't counted equally.
You're allowing niggers in my state to have more power than you.

what are orange hunters?
pls explain

Read the federalist papers you arrogant piece of shit

its the only county in cali that actually works

i thought orange county was so based until i knew about Anaheim.

>understand the purpose of the electoral college
To give MontanaTards, WyomingShits, and IdahoFags more representation than they ought to have?

Orange pickers - that's why it's called Orange county.

Pic related is the standard Orange county citizen at his job

Siqq argument.
If your point is as salient as you seem to think then state it yourself. Don't expect the person you're arguing against to make your point for you.

>cherry picking
I can do that too.

Doesn't matter, California belongs to the smelt now.

How can landwalkers even compete?

Easily - California has no water for those stupid fish to swim in

You're literally making the exact point as him, that the winner take all system is fucking retarded.

AzteLan isn't Americs kiwi bro

OC has always been shit
They don't even grow oranges there

Your leftist argument (which I see all the time) was addressed DIRECTLY by the founding fathers. You have parroted some argument you heard on Sup Forums without even doing basic reading into the origin of the american electoral system and its purpose you faggot

People say "well things change! A state was X before so it can be X again". But that was back when all the states were almost completely hwhite.

But now that liberals have implemented the policy of just tarnishing demographics with mudskins in order to get guaranteed votes, it's left states like california completely destroyed. California will NEVER vote conservative again. Not unless something drastic is done and we physically remove all the nonwhites.

What exactly is the purpose of the electoral college system? A coworker of mine always bitches about it and says it should just be the popular vote that determines elections. I'm not able to refute his argument to my liking.

In short, I need a clear and concise reason as to why the electoral college is better than popular vote in the U.S.

>Your leftist argument
Lol.
>the rest
Again, if you really think there's such and obvious way to shut down my argument THEN FUCKING STATE IT
Quit beating around the bush and attempting to declare yourself the winner before you've even made an argument.
Hopefully you'll manage to read this post properly since you've failed that past 2 or 3.

Voting patterns can change too, user. Remember, Hispanics are generally social conservative Christians.

this is why i dont vote and never will. its never been about what the people want.

The OC is based if you're not a poor faggot.

>muh natural conservatives

That's fucking bullshit. Mestizos always vote overwhelmingly for socialism (just like in their home countries) and they always will.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

(Y

isn't the purpose of the electoral college to maintain a balance between rural and urban power? Without it the needs of rural people would be disproportionately unmet because there's many more people in cities than rural areas nowadays. Without the electoral college america would devolve into taxation without representation in rural areas.

Also america isn't a democracy it's a republic

but what do I know, i'm just a leaf

Yes, people don't seem to understand this. It's the whole point of why we have the house of reps with proportionate representation along with the senate, where each state gets 2 senators regardless of size. It's to even things out and prevent large states from completely dominating smaller states.

That said, I think the winner-take-all method is bullshit, but the proportionality is not. You can have both. If cali has 55 electorates and Trump wins 40% of them, then he should get 40% x 55 = 22 electorates. And same with all the other states. That way everyone's vote matters (instead of only if you're in a swing state) but it's still slightly weighted more toward smaller states.

They'll never actually bother changing this though, because it's just more convenient to keep it the way it is. And if they were to change the voting system, I'm much rather they put in a preferential voting system so that we could ditch the retarded de facto 2 party system that FPTP devolves into.

Since you still didn't feel like presenting an argument I just had to read through and assume what you'd be arguing. Don't accuse me of strawmanning when you gave me no damn choice.
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
>elect electors so they can choose to ignore who you elect and elect someone else based on ???
How about instead of electing electors we elect the person we fucking want? How is this anything but an unnecessary step?
You may say "oh those electors are more wise and will make more informed decisions" but they were elected by the same retards you seem to think they'll nullify.
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
>literally quelling dissent by nullifying votes for "undesirables"
Wow that just screams democracy, doesn't it?
I guess trump and sanders are just "factions" so it's fine and dandy if the electoral voters just say "fuck it" and throw all their votes to Hildog, right?
There doesn't need to be a balance between rural and urban power. There needs to be a balance of voting power where every single individual gets exactly 1 vote.
Right now someone in Wyoming effectively gets several votes for every one a New Yorker does because of the electoral college.

>Right now someone in Wyoming effectively gets several votes for every one a New Yorker does because of the electoral college.

That's a good thing and prevents a few big states from completely dominating smaller ones. For fucks sake, that's the entire goddamn reason the founding fathers set it up this way.

Personally I don't want an Illinois situation (where one densely-packed area like chicago has unchecked control over the entire rest of the state) applied to the national level.

>There doesn't need to be a balance between rural and urban power. There needs to be a balance of voting power where every single individual gets exactly 1 vote.

If you think about it there's really no good reason for all votes being equal beyond it's what "seems" fair. However, as we've argued, this fairness is outweighed by the possibility of non-representation

Ultra rare. Prove you are not a proxy!

>>That's a good thing and prevents a few big states from completely dominating smaller ones.
No the senate does that.
Giving one state more power in an election where the winner runs the entire country is simply not fair.
There's no reason that a person in Wyoming should have more say on federal laws, that affect the entire country equally, than a person in New York.
States maintain their balance of power in the legislate branch. The executive branch should be 1 vote=1 vote
>Personally I don't want an Illinois situation (where one densely-packed area like chicago has unchecked control over the entire rest of the state) applied to the national level.
Literally impossible unless 160 million+ people suddenly pack into California.
>If you think about it there's really no good reason for all votes being equal beyond it's what "seems" fair
Not "seems"
What IS fair.
Again, there's no reason for people in Wyoming to have more votes in an election for a NATIONAL leader than people in literally any other state.

What incentive does a small state like wyoming or vermont have to even be part of the union of their representation is essentially nil?

You're incapable of seeing this in any other way than population size.

Yes, it's winner-take-all.

No participation trophy awards in the U.S. politics. You win or you don't.

>What incentive does a small state like wyoming or vermont have to even be part of the union of their representation is essentially nil?
That would be up to them to figure out but just saying "here's a bunch of free vote. Please don't leave bby" is not the answer.
It's "fixing" one imbalance by creating another.
Besides, with a whopping THREE (3) electoral votes their representation is practically nil anyway.

What a dumb system.

>Besides, with a whopping THREE (3) electoral votes their representation is practically nil anyway.
So then what are you complaining about?

There have been 4 elections where the winner did not win the popular vote.
It's pretty rare but that doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Okay, but I'm confused. You said the extra bit of representation wasn't enough to matter, but now you're saying it is enough to matter. Well which is it?

>You said the extra bit of representation wasn't enough to matter
Want to show me where I said that?
Was it when I said there were 4 elections won without the popular vote?

Man, I wish I could have been alive when George Washington was.

He would have been such a cool guy to know.

This was before millions more Mexicans arrived.

Were the Whigs the biggest dumbasses in American history?

>let's make only the red states winner take all fanfiction thread # 24336

They were contrarian faggots whose whole purpose was "We hate Andrew Jackson" which is a pretty fucking stupid platform considering Jackson was fuckmazing

everyone I know hates the electoral system, myself included. Hope it's abolished in my lifetime

I hear a lot of neocons say it's good. What's the problem with it?

never met a cape verdean hemi-nigger who didn't have a huge narcissist complex

>hurr, i was never meant to be janitor, i coulda been a surgeon if facters were not agin' me

island dumbass

The electorate has final say in most cases, trump can get 70% of the popular vote but still lose because of the electorate going against the people and choosing Hillary

sometimes i wish Sup Forums users had a higher capability to analyze information and thoughts

this is one of those times

But of course! They merely adioted socialist paradise. I was born in it... molded by it

You dumb ass redneck we are a federal republic that elects representatives and senators that vote for our wants. If we had a democracy every single fucking bill would be voted on by all Americans. That's not efficient - not with our population. Now why don't you get on your knees and pray to that invisible man in the sky you thick faggot

...

Earlier in the thread someone called me a lib for the exact same opinion.
Though calling me a dumb ass redneck makes even LESS sense seeing as getting rid of the electoral college would most likely harm republican interests.
You strawmanning idiots are hilarious.

You didn't even address my main statement lmao