Why do you have this terrible system?
California, 1 out of the FIFTY fucking states in your country, can apparently equal about 10% of the votes needed to become president, meaning that Clinton only needs a few lib shitholes packed to the brim with pajeets to win.
Pic related: See all that land Trump covers? That's a 'just barely' win for him.
>Why do you have this terrible system
it was made in a time when the government saw the common man as fools
they are supposed to go by the popular vote but instead dont always, see Bush/Gore
Average Joe is retarded
>Not understanding population density
Damn britcucks are dumb
If we went just by the popular vote, flyover country would have even less of a say in choosing our president.
California has slightly over 10 percent of the population. Whats the problem?
North California needs to happen today .
cause your probably 16 and not able to fathom a world in which communication from one end of the country to another would take days or longer just for one way.
Fucking seriously m8 at least try some sort of critical thinking instead of fucking none.
>can apparently equal about 10% of the votes needed to become president
more like 20% but yeah
The electoral college isn't the problem in CA, it's the winner-take-all clause. CA either needs to be split into 2 or more smaller states that better represent the residents of those regions, or the electoral votes need to be assigned independently per district.
Back when the founding fathers were around. There were more farmers and laborers than city folk. It probably seemed like a good system at the time. But now city populations outnumber them, now cities dictate th politics of entire states. It's really becoming a problem.
california contains 10% of the population, retard
You're right though, the system does not to be rebuilt from the ground up.
But we can't do that until we GAS the fucking KIKES
>it was made in a time when the government saw the common man as fools
the common man is still a fool
This
The actual argument should be something like: CA covers way too many people to simply let them be ruled by the majority.
For example:
Even 30% of the population of CA make up a big junk of the US total population. If those 30% people want to vote something else than democrat, they are basically fucked.
>California, 1 out of the FIFTY fucking states in your country, can apparently equal about 10% of the votes needed
They're 12 percent of the country, but only have 55 of 538 votes, just under 10%.
By contrast, Wyoming has 0.18% of the US population, and 0.56% of the vote.
If flyover states didn't get far more per-capita voting power, conservatives would never see the inside of the White House, and we probably wouldn't be the most conservative civilized nation on Earth.
>drumpfkins need a children's cartoon to explain politics to them
oh im laffin
>If we went just by the popular vote, flyover country would have even less of a say in choosing our president.
As they should.
With the current system, it's almost like cows can vote.
>hillshills need John Oliver to explain politics to them
A popular vote system would be even worse because the Democrats refuse to adhere to any standards when allowing people to vote and just go with "you have an ID, you must be a citizen- here, vote".
The electoral college is objectively superior to most other Western systems as it means that even though white English-speaking Americans will reasonably be 78% of the electorate at most this year in terms of actual ability to influence the election white Americans will be more like 85% of the electorate because of the sheer number of states which white Americans dominate.
As other countries like Australia and Canada become flooded by immigrants their systems ensure they will end up with proportionally greater numbers of ridings/districts which are dominated in terms of population by non-whites while the USA will see white power shrink more slowly.
Obviously if Trump gets elected the entire decline reverses itself.
Trump deporting illegals and making voter ID mandatory in all federal elections will pretty much destroy the Democratic stranglehold on California and many other states as the mysterious busses of blacks and mexicans will no longer be able to simply appear on election day.
The system is based on] population and it is almost prefect
True, but whoever gets 50+% shouldn't just automatically get all 55 electors either. The system they use in Maine makes way more sense.
>the Democrats refuse to adhere to any standards when allowing people to vote
Jesus, that's just wrong.
Republicans favor (and Democrats oppose) stricter voter ID laws because they disenfranchise more Democrat voters than Republican voters.
Such disenfranchisement greatly outnumbers any actual voter fraud, which is so minor it's nearly a urban legend.
And how does the EC prevent voter fraud, anyway?
The rest of the post indicates you're not very good at math (or civics).
Typical Trumper.
>The system they use in Maine makes way more sense.
Popular vote would make even more sense.
In every single election (even using a pro-rated system), there will always be people who's vote doesn't just "not count", but actually counts against their preferred candidate.
You know what'd be the best? AV/STV in a popular vote. Fuck FPTP.
The problem is that the voting power of that 10% is controlled by 3 cities full of illegals
> big junk
(but I agree with you)