How is the Electoral College fair?

How is the Electoral College fair?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

FPP is always fair

Because it's based on population?

because states with high electoral count have the biggest population. electoral college is dumb and from an outdated time back when all the states were basically competing against each other and weren't united. It still is roughly an estimation of popular vote nationally, but there is no reason to use it in modern times.

those states simply have more population so they get more votes, makes sense

i do agree though it should be done away with - just have people vote and whoever gets the most votes wins

wouldnt it just make more sense to split electoral votes proportionally?

>my state has more people in it therefore (citizens or otherwise) our voice is worth more than yours

True, but it makes the election a lot more exciting with all the strategic state campaigning and shit.

What do you mean? They are split proportionally by population size of each state.

The electoral college is in place to protect the country from the oppression of the majority. Its the reason we are a Republic first and a democracy second. Democracys always fail.

T.b.h it should be electoral still but based on adjusted county values.

weird shit can still happen with electoral votes - shit like bush/gore in 2000

why not just boil it down to democracy in its purist form - 1 vote for 1 person, the candidate with the most wins

more exciting is ignoring any state that has a 40-60 voting trend.

>Democracys always fail.
This means literally nothing given every system of government given sufficient time has failed.

It's actually the opposite you retard. Without the electoral college the cucks in all those states would drown out the rest of the states.

>The electoral college is in place to protect the country from the oppression of the majority.

meanwhile the largest states never swing

no like, for example, if illinois vote is 2/3 for clinton all the electoral votes goes to her. why shouldnt the other 1/3 go to trump?

Yeah that's sort of how democracy works, bud.

If anything it's unfairly biased towards low-population states as every state is given 2 electoral votes right off the bat.

inb4: we're a republic ;)

Just NH, PA, and VA more and that's it, game over for Drumpf

So Trump will win in a landslide but the electoral college wont vote for him? What happens then?

For example. In California in 2012, Obama carried the state with 60% of the vote, Romney won 37%, if the electoral vote were split proprietorially, Obama would receive 33 votes and Romney would receive 20 votes with the remaining two either being allocated through rounding if a threshold was put in place or distributed among the remaining candidates.

it actually works the opposite to that, in states with smaller populations your vote is a larger portion of an electoral vote essentially due to the minimum number being 3.

What a lot of people don't is, is that you're not voting for the president, you're voting for the electorates who cast the real votes for the president.

>Without the electoral college the cucks in all those states would drown out the rest of the states.

those cucks get 50+ votes, when's the last time commiefornia's republicans were represented in that number?

That would just be popular vote nationally lol.. which like I said would make more sense given that all the states aren't really competing against each other anymore.

>Because it's based on population?

THIS

It was until dems understood that welfare is to big government voters as orange juice is to insects and now they have a huge advantage every election

>michigan
>blue
nice meme

Because then politicians will only pander to cities with millions of people and leave rurals to rot.

it's based on population, it's almost perfect.

although I don't understand what the fuck anons mean when they say pop vote would give more power to California?? how?? it would literally be all of America voting one way or anyther, and it would throw the idea of swing states out the window (although this would lead to candidates exclusively touring in the most densely populated cities and ignoring the flyover states, but they kinda do that already so???)

they already do that, it's how the left gains most of its support

Trump was leading in electoral college polls about a month ago. Have not heard anything about it since though. There are also laws in effect in some states that they will hand over all their electoral votes to the winner of the majority. Some of those states then saw the problem with Trumps popularity and overturned those laws. The whole thing is a fucking wreck right now. There has also been talk about Hillary buying off electoral votes.

This is what you get when you flood the country with uncontrolled immigration. Business friendly Republicans brought cheap in cheap labor while Democrats got Votes. It was the their own fault.

What a lot of people don't know is, is that you're not actually voting for the president, you're voting for the electorates who cast the real votes for the president.

if around 50+-5% of the population vote for someone they should get 50+-% of the college votes, which is what has happened practically every time.

It's not, the votes should be split evenly not winner take all for each state.

It doesn't make any sense that northern California is redder than your GF's pussy after I am done with her but gets overruled by southern California because of all the "gibsmedats" out of SF and LA.

California is a fucking handicap for democrats because they always start with 55 votes no matter what.

>it's based on population, it's almost perfect.

It's not perfect at all. It's stupid at hell and shouldn't exist in 2016 AD

>vote for someone who will vote for president.

this, they already distribute it so cities get more so politicians pander more

with 1 vote per person though, the population in the minority's vote counts

you wouldn't get republicans staying home in california on election day cause it's pointless

the whole idea of a head of state who wields power is pretty stupid, if USA never split from England there would probably be no first world countries using that retarded idea

MI is grey at least

NET POPULATION,

WHICH TAKES INTO COUNT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (WHO CANNOT VOTE)

ITS A FLAWED SYSTEM, CALIFORNIA FOR EXAMPLE IS A BLUE LOCKED STATE. ATLEAST 4 OF THOSE VOTES CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS ILLEGAL ALIEN DENSITY.

THAT PRETTY MUCH CANCELS OUT STATES LIKE NH.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND

>California is a fucking handicap for democrats because they always start with 55 votes no matter what.
then add the entire north east to that

using both popular vote and the electoral college is shit, because EC is based on population anyway

all it does is allow a party to stack votes if they "win" a big population state, and if EC votes go against the popular vote it just highlights representatives not doing their jobs

shit needs reform badly, especially since they are counting general populations, and not just citizens in the totals

soon commiefornia will be an even bigger retarded slice of the pie for absolutely no fucking reason but the fact that it's full of mexicans

I SHOULD HAVE SAID
>IF ATLEAST 4
COULD BE MORE!

THE MORE YOU KNOW!

and yet all the conservatives in California get ignored

>ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (WHO CANNOT VOTE)

guess which state's cities want to change that

Sanctuary cities

>it actually works the opposite to that, in states with smaller populations your vote is a larger portion of an electoral vote essentially due to the minimum number being 3.

and it's balanced by the fact that it's still only out of three fucking votes total

It's more fair in some places than others.

its fair in the states with the most sanctuary cities

The amount of electoral votes should be based on the amount of registered voters.

You can technically win 50% of the electoral college with only 22% of the vote. And you've had 3 occasions where someone won the popular vote but not the presidency. That's not remotely fair

>we are a Republic first and a democracy second. Democracys always fail.


Answer me this faggot, if we are a Republic first and a democracy second, then how come 1/5 of the votes are always locked blue in favor of Democrat?

Can't they just take everyone vote and decide on top of that?
Why divide by state and add all the complicated shit?

Yes. Because faithless electors are a thing.

> being this dumb

If I lived in a state with 3 electoral votes, and I was the only person who lived in that state, my vote along would be 3 electoral votes, an amount that could plausibly determine the election. But nah LOL ITS ONLY THREE.

It was also used because the sheer logistics of a direct national vote at the time were impractical.

desu imo desu reduce california texas new york and florida by like 10% each

most states have laws against that

There are no locked votes. And polls are not votes.

Or make all stats have split districts like maine and nebraska

REPEAL THE REAPPORTIONMENT ACT OF 1929

You're lucky we have the electoral college. The weighting actually makes it so that the most populous states carry less weight.

I'm Russian and I want to vote(vote Trump, of course(my father is working in Kremlin and he approved that Trump is Russian agent(seriously, that's not a joke) ), but I can't...

They have punishments yes, but a faithless electoral vote is still legal and counted.

3 votes is literally nothing in the grand scheme, when 50+ are locked in every time for one side no matter who actually votes

your argument might be worth a shit if each state was weighed equally, but they aren't, which you keep repeating for us

Its because the founding fathers didnt want the president to be popularly elected, but they also couldnt think of another way to determine the president without spoiling executive independence. Their solution was a system in which electors are elected, who then elect the president. The idea was that these smart electors would get elected, and then deliberate and discuss who should be president. They would be a kind of, more intelligent and thoughtful middle man than your normal person.

But uh, yeah it didnt work out that way. The electors dont do anything. State laws make it so you only become an elector if you promise to vote for someone, and then you are basically committed to voting that way.

fuck all you faggots

popular vote = only fair way to do it

states don't matter, if the electoral college is based on population anyways I don't see how states like 55 vote commiefornia would have any more sway than they already have. if anything the fucking drops of red water in that blue bucket would actually matter instead of repubs basically not even having to bother to vote. imagine how many conservatives live in California who know their vote means absolutely nothing. in a pop vote system more people would be encouraged to vote

I want to hear no other argument unless it's fucking flawless. pop vote is best vote.

If it was distributed evenly by population wyoming would have 0 (zero) electoral votes and california would have 65

Yes, but many states are worth only three electoral votes, 13 of them in fact. Together they are 44 electoral votes. All of the people in those 13 states have greater impact in the election than those else where.

The probability is fair than any of those small electoral states could determine the election. Five thirty eight estimates that There is a 5% chance New Hampshire could determine the election.

Oops, where I wrote 'only three' I should have said 'three or four'.

Northern Ca bro here, there is a pretty serious movement here to break off from California and form a separate state of Jefferson that would incorporate all counties to the east and north of Sacramento and possibly some of southern Oregon. I know there's like 12 or so counties that have actually voted on and approved a secession declaration.

>a flyover state with two million people should have the same political influence as California who has almost 39 million people

The EC is actually skewed in favour of small states, not big ones. The optimal route to becoming president with the absolute minimum % of votes goes through the small states, not the big ones.

should award electoral votes based on percentage of votes

like the delegates

no longer will conservatives in california, new york and illinois go unheard

>evenly by population

where did I say by population

>leave one cucked state to be the twink of another cucked state

how do the arrangements work? would Washington take turns deep dicking you or would you take the full role of cuck and watch Oregon get raw dogged by Washington

>faithless electoral vote
I'm scared of the establishment finally cornering Trump

THE ELECTORATE, STATES

This country is setup to cater to niggers and the shitty part is we let this happen over the last 75 years.

...

The electoral college protects us.

>Wyoming gets 3 electors, and it's only got half a million residents.

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

Then there is no reason to appeal to people that aren't on the east or west coast since that is where there is the highest population density. Those city people can also have more power in swaying what happens to the people in the middle of the USA.

>all 39 million people in commiefornia are represented by 50+ votes for one party's candidate

surely the state with 3-4 votes being decided by a smaller population is the problem amirite

>Millions of Republican votes are nil because they are Californian but some few shitters in Nevada can literally decide who's the next president.

FPTP becomes worse the more people get lumped together.

I just don't get why you can't just directly vote the president.

Kennedy beat Nixon by 119,000 votes.
Johnson beat Goldwater by 15.7 million.
Nixon beat Humphrey by 721,000.
Nixon beat McGovern by 17.8 million.
Carter beat Ford by 1.7 million.
Reagan beat Carter by 8.2 million.
Reagan beat Mondale by 16.9 million.
Bush beat Dukakis by 7.1 million.
Clinton beat Bush by 5.8 million.
Clinton beat Dole by 8.2 million.
Bush beat Gore by -544,000
Bush beat Kerry 3.0 million.
Obama beat McCain by 9.6 million.
Obama beat Romney by 5.0 million.

Not by population, but by actual counted votes. Electoral college seems nuts on principle, but it also seems to be reflecting the will of the public. What more do you want?

LMAO
HILLARY BTFO

THIS WILL BE THE END RESULTS!

>distributing the electoral college equally among all the states
How dumb can you be? Please don't vote. You don't understand anything about how even OUR government works. The foreigners you're responding to know more about this than you. That says a lot.

to be fair most of those states are 75%+ white

Yes, that would be correct.
I don't think you thought your sarcastic argument through.

California is literally always blue due to high shitskin population and counts for 1/5 electoral votes needed to win.
That's practically locked.

>Half million

I should move there

The real bullshit is that people in the cities decide the election. Meanwhile all their food comes from the rural areas that tend to vote the opposite of how they vote.

It isn't really. They people who put it into place were terrified of the general population and did not want them to have a true voice

Why dont they split it like NNE and ME

So like CA 1 2 3 4 5 Each worth 11
that way republicans will probably get around 22-33 of the 55

All states begin with 3 electives. This means that a vote in Wyoming is worth about four votes in California.

Electoral college>pure democracy tbqh.

>distributing the electoral college equally among all the states

you gonna add some more words to my posts or what

>Bush beat Gore by -544,000

Kek
Imagine if you had a normal voting system. Imagine if we got a Gore President. Imagine no 9/11, imagine no terrorists, no Al Quaeda, no Sadam Hussein, no Osama Bin Laden, no ISIS, no climate change

so it should be

Wyoming = whites
CA = Shit skins

Whites are worth 4x more