Why does the electoral college exist?

A candidate can win without having a majority of votes wtf America?

Thats American """""democracy""""" for ya

>I just got into politics this year
>Answer me anything

Any first past the post system can lead to screwy results. It's an altogether shitty election method

Because the founders of the system wanted the voices of a more diverse group of people to be heard.

If the outcome were based on popular vote, political parties would mostly nominate people from the largest cities and states while campaigning primarily in places like NYC, Chicago, LA, etc...

No one would care about the issues that effect a rural Coloradoan or a lobster fisherman in New Hampshire because these states have a smaller population and these people are a small minority.

Because of the electoral college, candidates must be more well-rounded on the issues and talk about almost everything to appeal to a greater and more diverse group of people.

Instead of speaking to only the masses, you must also court the people from the "swing states," which if you haven't noticed, are scattered all over the USA.

But they literally ignore half of the country and only focus on some arbitrary swing states...
Your entire argument can be applied to having a popular vote too

Because the founding fathers didn't trust the people, and it's too politically useful for Congress to ever get rid of.

You're missing the point. Everything that's done in presidential campaigns would be based on appealing to in highly populated regions if elections were won based on whoever receives more of the popular vote.

Think about the people in the northwest. There aren't many people there. If Wyoming is having a volcanic crisis that needs to be dealt with and that issue only effects people in Wyoming, politicians would likely ignore it because Wyoming as so few people and thus little say in the the election result. They would instead focus on what people in NYC want to hear.

because, spic, THIS PLACE IS AS CORRUPT AS YOUR SHITHOLE OF A COUNTRY

Republic > democracy

We are a republic. Not a democracy.

To boost the the power of slave states.

Okay, but there are also not having a popular vote depresses turnout in some states and in theory someone can become president with 23% of the national vote.
If you live in california and you want to vote republican you might as well not vote.

Gerrymandering

The electoral college was a decent system when information traveled by horseback. Now with computers, it is just an unnecessary step.

This. Also, city people shouldn't have a say over the lives of decent people.

REPUBLICS ARE INHERENTLY DEMOCRATIC YOU FUCKING RETARD.

Holy shit every time I hear an amerilard spew this retarded shit I want to punch them.

"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to democratically vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. "

INDIRECT VOTE IS STILL A PART OF DEMOCRACY.

It's just a really stupid retarded way of doing it.

to stop people from successfully electing write-in candidates

Very true. I live in Illinois and my state always goes blue. I'm not going to vote.

I'm apathetic towards the electoral college.

I was just trying to tell you why it was put in place.

And frankly, the electoral college seems to be helping more Republicans get elected than Democrats so I'm cool with it.

literally to stop dangerous sociopaths like Trump

Back in the day before internets, it was impossible or very difficult to send in the votes of every single person to Washington so they elected local representatives to ride to Washington and cast the vote for the people they represent.

Any other answer is retarded conjecture.

This is not an explanation. A republic doesn't require and electoral college.

The reason is that slave states had low populations and were afraid that the larger populations of the free states would endanger slavery. The electoral college put them on a more equal footing because it is based on population and slaves counted for 3/5 of a person when determining representation.

>
If the outcome were based on popular vote, political parties would mostly nominate people from the largest cities and states while campaigning primarily in places like NYC, Chicago, LA, etc...

Only in a fptp system, friend.

It's so the educated politicians can alter the results of an election to secure the wellbeing of America. If we let everyone's vote count equally we would end up in the Trumpocolypse.

I'm not doing your political science homework for you, Juan.

welp i live in republic too, but presidential is popular vote not a electoral vote. Take a look at California whole 55 electoral were there this is rigged towards you called it blue wtf, winning presidential is easy just bombard whole swing state with immigrant and you guaranteed win presidential.

It was made because the president wasn't supposed to be a populous figure. They were supposed to be a capable leader. Representation was what the houses of congress were for. Now it hangs around because it would require an amendment to the constitution to get rid of, and it dampens voter fraud.

we're a Republic, not a Democracy. You need to remember that the US is about the same size as the EU and has 60% of the population as the entire EU. We're the 3rd largest country in the world.

The Electoral System works for us, granted I do believe it needs more compartmentalization.

For those who don't know, when you go to a voting place those votes are counted towards who wins what county, each county is worth a certain number based on population, then those numbers are added up and used to determine who won the state. Currently all but 2 states give all their votes to the same candidate, but the other two states give their votes according to which counties went with who.

The latter way is, in my opinion, superior to the 'winner takes all' states.

To protect the people from themselves. They almost elected a retarded reality show personality / con man because of suckers falling for his totally bogus rhetoric. Thanks founding fathers!!!!!!

>INDIRECT VOTE IS STILL A PART OF DEMOCRACY.
Not how we originally set it up.
The US was specifically formed to NOT be an actual democracy because democracies always end badly.

Our founders were very critical of democracy, because the majority should not be able to fuck over the little guy.
Voting in the US has never been a right. It's a duty like jury duty and like jury duty was only for those qualified for the task.

The men who founded the US would never support the voting arrangements we currently have.

>republics are inherently democratic
""""no""

>Id: Ese+tJC8

No u idiot, rural places have their own government too. Mayors and shit

Because America is a republic not a democracy.

Simple as that.

The answer is clearly set forth in the Federalist Papers. Refer to Fedralist 39. In summary a pure democracy is rule by the largest gang imposing its will upon the smaller gang.

The Democracy is the corrupt form of the Republic.

Read your fucking classics; There's a reason we're not a democracy

A republic is a democratic form of government, but it is not a democracy, nor is it essentially a representative democracy.

Wrong. Do some fucking research you idiots.

It was to boost the power of slave states. Why do you think it is based on congressional representation, not say an equal number for all states or based on voting population?

The 3/5 compromise boosted slave state representation in Congress and the electoral system followed from that with the goal being to boost their power to balance out the more populous free states.

It was never a democracy.

Imagine if 90% California votes for candidate A and 55% of the rest of the country votes for candidate B.

candidate A should get BTFO but in a simple majority system he would win.

>REPUBLICS ARE INHERENTLY DEMOCRATIC YOU FUCKING RETARD.

Go read a book you retard. Republics are just a form of government it cares not for democracy. For fucks sake the Junta is a form of republic.

>INDIRECT VOTE IS STILL A PART OF DEMOCRACY.

Not really.

being democratic and being a democracy are in fact two different things moron.

A direct democracy is literally just mob rule, where as a Republic has advantages for protecting minority votes (not races, but voter demographics)

You could call it a democratic republic, but a republic is not a democracy.

Jewish "Democracy"

Bc the founding fathers are godlike and always right.

Get your head out of your ass, ur fouding fathers arent worth shit.

Bow down for hillary u cuckold phaggot

If you stop spazzing out for three seconds, you might realize that's not the point he's making.

The point is that the Electoral College is an inherently *republican* (small R) institution. If everybody directly cast their vote for the candidate they wanted, and each vote was weighted equally, that'd be a more directly democratic (small D) system; instead we technically cast our votes (not all of which are weighted equally) for intermediary representatives, who in theory are capable of acting somewhat independently. In so doing, we're prioritizing certain necessary values -- fairness, security, whatever -- above the *direct democratic* ideal of one man, one vote.

Now go eat a banana and drink some tea out of a gourd and the next time you feel like flipping out at somebody, make sure you understand what they're saying first.

Check your math Paulo DeSilva

California gets 55 fucking electoral votes this is not even close to an argument.

It still works that way. It would take 20 of my state to counter the electoral votes of CA.

The key feature missing here is the artificial boost that salve state got back in the day. They had low voting populations, but saw their power increased through the electoral college thanks to the 3/5 compromise.

No u idiot

dude uneducated masses lmao

Itt retard americans who think democracy means mob rule.

How stupid are these yankees

its so if one area of the country is doing well with a low population, they still have a say in the government.

Think about rich farm owners ->> take up a lot of land, and not many votes. Then think about detroit -> bunch of niggers on welfare. Who should get more votes

It is flawed, but its not a bad idea in some regards.

If anyone's interested read about the election of Samuel Tilden and Rutherford b. Hayes. Tilden was an anti-establishment guy that probably would have unearthed a lot about how evil Washington really is. Through the electoral college they got Hayes into the presidency instead.

Obviously incredibly stupid because they never bothered to actually read up on the system and its origins.

It was formed because it was hard to get all the votes of the country in one place, so representatives from each state gave their electoral votes to make everything a bit more local and go smoother. This was conducted like 200 or so years ago. They need to update for sure.

>he still doesn't understand republics
The federal government is a collection of states. States. States. States. States. States. States. States.

Has it penetrated your thick skull yet?

States. States. States.

>it's the States, stupid
States.

There are no slave states anymore. The system is archaic and pointless.

Democratic republic, not a democracy. We vote local representatives, who vote on our behalf.

Essentially, its a filter used to keep the popular votes from snowballing and creating radical change. Our founders knew most of the populace was uneducated about politics, and still are, and wanted a barrier between them and elected officials. Not a bad idea desu.

The electoral college defeats the colorado farmer. His vote goes to an all or nothing state that has 1/6 the impact as the california farmer, 2/7 the impact of a NYC banker or 1/3 the impact of a Florida welfare queen.

In a popular vote system, every single vote is equal.

>Bc the founding fathers are godlike and always right.
Nope, but sure as shootin they had the eye on that ol ball with democracy and arms.

Democracy is trash.
Guns are your best friend in life.

>hurr stoopid redneck!
M.Sc chemical engineering, organic chemistry
etc

You see, what made our founders so wise was the collection of them.
Each man had different thoughts and ideas. They were all learned men.
They came together to has out ideas. The stupid ones were cast aside, the good ones put forth, and then voted on.

Good men who were JUST men, but who came together, first to plead their case to the crown, then to try negotiations, then as a last resort, TO ARMS.

Why is the system based on population by way of congressional representatation? If it were to provide representataion for the states they should have equal numbers in the electoral college.

because its supposed to be people running towns that run districts that run states that run the federal government.

currently it is completely backwards

Because information travels at the speed of horse.
>Baberham Lincoln

>what is a republic
>elections are democratic, just not directly

Did you want a serious answer?

If so, it's because technologically in the 18th and 19th centuries we needed it to get the election to happen on a given day, as opposed to the course of a month. Not that it really succeeded in cutting down the time but it did do something positive then.

Nowadays, no we don't need it, but if we got rid of it it'd throw the US into a panic politician wise.

That is because the CO farmer doesn't have a herd of slaves who count as 3/5 of a person when determining congressional representatives which determines how many electoral college votes CO gets.

To elaborate Tilden won the popular vote and a major stance he held was anti-corruption. Hayes was a union general and served as a puppet for the railroad barons basically. Definitely worth a read into

The electoral college is a great idea and allows for the smaller states to not be dominated by larger ones.

Because its the United STATES of America.

States matter and are important no matter their size or population.

>If so, it's because technologically in the 18th and 19th centuries we needed it to get the election to happen on a given day, as opposed to the course of a month.

Bullshit. If this week true then representation would be based on eligible voter population of each, not the number of congressional representatives.

Do some research. It was created to boost the power of slave states which is why congressional representation was used. Slave states had artificially boosted numbers due to the 3/5 compromise.

This nonsense and chimping out is what happens when we allow Brazilian monkeys freedom of speech and an opinion on politics

Why argue over all of this when the founders explained it all in the federalist papers. Obviously you are all too lazy to read them and probably too stupid to understand them. Go back to watching the view.

>Why is the system based on population by way of congressional representatation?
The Senate isn't.

Look at how the Roman Republic was ran. The US government is nearly identical thematically.

Because the US is a collection of individual countries, and those countries don't want to be ruled by "foreign" countries solely because they allow in unlimited immigrants and thus have a massive population.

You are missing the point. The house was determined by population. Slave states had relatively low numbers of citizens. The 3/5 compromise have them artificial increase in representation and the electoral college representation is based off of the number of senators plus congressional reps.

The whole point was to boost slave state power.

Correct. Originally the Senate was elected by the state governments as well rather than the citizens.

Seriously, both of you, be quiet already.

There are several arguments originally put forth both for and against the Electoral College. Yes, it was created partly to appease the slave states, but that wasn't the only factor, not by half. It was a complex decision. Go read about it instead of posting about the one aspect of it you apparently know about.

Certainly there are many arguments (besides inertia) for maintaining it today, none of which have to do with slavery. Whether they have any merit or not, they're more relevant than the shit you're posting.

>demanding the only posters who are even close to being right shut up while everyone else spouts baseless bullshit

Kill yourself my man.

There are advantages. For example, highest percent wins means more chance of voter fraud. If you have 10 swing states you need to commit voter fraud in 10 locations, more chance of someone cottoning on.

>A candidate can win without having a majority of votes wtf America?
Why would you let a bunch of uneducated retards choose their goverment? If people were able to do such a thing the fucking Peje would have destroyed our nation since 2006, a functional goverment cant allow to have such retarded people in charge, look at Venezuela, they have free elections, but also they have a goverment that has destroyed their nation and will take decades to repair it.

Imagine the US being ruled by Bernie and his commie crew? Also, I wouldnt be surprised if fucking americans elected a reality tv personality as their president

There is a correct answer. Not hard to find. So why tolerate the wrong answers being flung around.

This, tbqh, fampedro

Redpill me on the Electoral College. I have no idea how it works.

We have popular vote you fucking retard.

Ideally it's so the smaller states votes matter which is a load of bullshit anyway considering California has 55 votes which is more than literally every other state. Even more bullshit considering California votes blue literally every fucking election
It takes like 5 or 6 states to vote red just to equal out Californias

Presenting one side of a complex issue as though it were the whole thing doesn't make you "right." It's actually pretty idiotic, and it degrades the whole conversation.

It'd be like somebody answering "why did the Roman Empire fall?" with "Christianity." "Really? Because I heard that they overextended their --" "No, idiot, they fell because they Christianized." "That seems like an oversimplification." "Kill yourself, my man."

>We have popular vote you fucking retard.
No you fucking retard, we had to put a glitch on the system back in 2006 to stop AMLO and his pejezombies from destroying our nation, if you really think the plebs have a say in who rules them over you are nothing but a Brayan

And yet you post on pol.

Fuck I hate all of you so much

this.

The shit you read in OpEds on newspapers of today talking about the Electoral college being created only so that slave states had more power is bullshit. The original plan was to have the senate & house appoint the president. The college was to be a check against a political elite ruling class forming and choosing presidents that did follow the will of the people. It created the same numbers of representation that you had in congress but kept them loyal to their state and away from washington. If you want to argue that the electoral college is wrong for not having "correct" numbers, then you also need to argue that the congressional numbers are wrong.

>Implying I care about American politics
I usually stick to British politics but this US election has been such a meme.

*that did not follow

>Two muslims brothers fighting each other for petty shit
Why Im not surprised?

Preservation of the federation aspect of the country is not why it exists as it does though. Any number of systems could have been created to act as a check in the will of the people and empower the states. The system that was selected was done with the specific intent described.

Both concepts are obsolete todaya anyways. The notion of state sovereignty died the moment the Constitution was ratified, it just took a few decades before it was apparent. Literally everything the anti-federalists warned of has come to pass.

German muzzies < Brit muzzies

Do british muslims pack more TNT?

All muslims are equal
Equally shit so dont delude yourself britcuck

>60% non hispanic white man trying to talk down on minorities

Yes, German muzzies us axes and kill less kuffar
Amerifags < German muzzies < Brit muzzies

Because the Founders knew that allowing a mob of Americans to vote for their leader wasn't in the best interests of the states. At the time, the States were independent, sovereign nations with their own currencies, trade laws, military, etc. The only power the US government had over the whole before the Constitution was the ability to command the combined military of the USA, but they couldn't even levy taxes to make that military worth a damn.

With this in mind the framers knew that the election of the President was really the election of the President OF these United States. he was not the elected "ruler" of the individuals in the country, he/she is just our national representative and one of three main components of passing national legislation to maintain the Union. By having Californians vote for who California wants for President instead of just voting for President, the will of the state is continued even though we're choosing a leader for the national government.


TL, DR; one is more representative of the ideas that make our democracy function (the electoral college), the other is a mass-election of our leader by the people. While they seem the same, they are very different.

>Morisco rapebaby commentating about minority status

Why are you talking to me
You cant hear me past the wall we're about to make you fucks pay for you shitskin
>cucked out of our country
>cucked again in World War 2 when we saved your asses from big scary Nazis
>cucked again when brown shit skins immigrate and start raping your women
Oh how the great empire has fallen

>Americucks will defend this