To all Ameribros here.. You guys have to reform your electoral system

To all Ameribros here.. You guys have to reform your electoral system.

The current trend will assure Democrat Presidents forever.. California, NY, PA, Florida.. they sum up to 127 and they've all been Dem since the unofficial open borders policy enacted by the Dems started and all your voting scams... It just takes a few more states on the East to get the Presidency, while Reps have to win a shit ton of swing states to even have a slight chance of winning, and this means more expenditure in ads and more campaign and infinite costs..

Are State weights really fair? Why isn't Cali broken up in more States? I think all your shit is rigged from the beginning and voting machine scams are not even necessary to ensure a Dem victory.. They worked very hard in the Clinton and Obama years to ensure the election is always rigged against Reps thanks to orchestrated demographic shifts (mexicans in CA) and media-backed brainswashing (All Northern colonies).. Trump has really a shit probability to win and he's the most powerful Rep on the table..
Imagine Kasich, or Cruz, or Rubio.. By now they would've just admitted defeat against the Dem propaganda machine and demographic manipulators..

Americans, I think it's time for a Revolution 2.0..

A week ago I saw this posted here. I think it's legit. You can actually do it, for the People and by the People..

>Lol Russian poster
I'll bite.

Trump is winning this election by a landslide and I'm in California. Mexican demographics have grown, but the advances the Dems have are countered by their losses in Black Dem participation.

Trump is the candidate the people have submitted against the establishment. If he loses, and the only way it will happen is if they steal it from him, then we will consider partying like 1776. We have a few days to think about it.

Remember remember, the 5th of November.

It's arguably more fair than direct election because it gives more weight to voters outside of a handful of our biggest cities.

I don't know that states should be winner-take-all, but basically if we are to change the current system then a better system needs to be proposed and argued. Simply complaining about the current one won't do anything more than agitate.

I assume you're white, and it's obvious the sligtht majority of white Californians will vote Trump, but Mexicans are 30% of the Cali electorate.. they are ALL dem with a few exceptions and they will grow in the years to come.. Cali will forever be Dem because of Spics and white Liberals.. and niggers. They want the gibsmedats and they love the Clintons.

Direct election would be absolutely fantastic.. or even an equal weight between States..
The fact that California is more important than Wyoming is uncostitutional and against any kind of logic.. Wtf does that mean.. all States should matter the same and their deviation should AT MAX to be of 10 or 15.. not 50

The current system actually favors republicans. California gets 1 electoral vote for every 700k people. Meanwhile states like Wyoming have 1 electoral vote for every 194k people.

This also means that to win the elections you just have to import a shit ton of spics and win the State, or even bus them like they already did..
Really your shit is worse than an African country..

This logic is flawed. Idgaf about proportions, Cali is 55 and Wy is 3 but they're both States with equal weight before the law.. I just can't comprehend it.

Well there are like 7 or 8 people in Wyoming vs. California which is big enough to be the world's 8th largest economy when considered as its own country. Those 7 or 8 people in Wyoming are getting a much bigger say than they would otherwise under the current system.

It's similar to how we allocate representatives in congress -- each state gets a certain number of representatives based on the population of that state as measured by the census.

Yeah well that part needs to be fixed for sure. My two favorite ideas in circulation this year are requiring ID and doing that thing where you dip your thumb in ink in order to vote. Maybe in the future some sort of encryption-based solution would be possible.

Also the winner of the electoral college usually also wins the popular vote. The last time the winner lost the popular vote was in 2000, when Bush (a Republican) won the election despite losing the popular vote.

Before this you have go back 1888 when Benjamin Harrison won despite losing the popular vote.

This.

Each state should have 1 electoral delegate.

You need 26 to win.

Just because Cali bus in Spics by the millions doesn't make them more important to the Union than Ohio or Georgia.

>Cali is 55 and Wy is 3 but they're both States with equal weight before the law..
>Just because Cali bus in Spics by the millions doesn't make them more important to the Union than Ohio or Georgia.


They don't have equal weight and they shouldn't. California IS more important to the union. California's GDP is 2.5 trillion. 15% of the US economy. Wyoming's GDP is 31 billion. 0.2% of the US economy. California contributes 75 times as much to the US economy but only gets 18 times the electoral votes.

>requiring ID and doing that thing where you dip your thumb in ink in order to vote.

You know you fucked up when you have to imitate India to ensure a fair election. Also, what about this ID thing? Isn't it mandatory?

You are delusional. I am Californian and Trump is not 'winning by a landslide'. Get out of your echo chamber and wake up.
>as if (((they))) would allow Trump to win anyways

they should at least make electoral college votes com from districts instead of states

It's completely retarded that entire states vote red yet their votes go 100% to democrats.

More people might consider voting red if they thought their voice would even make a difference.

The current system makes some states in basically one-party states

>To all Ameribros here.. You guys have to reform your electoral system.

No shit
Trump is the only way that is going to happen.

Well the government is set up to operate like that in other ways. For instance, each state gets two senators no matter what, and senators hold some powers that representatives do not. If you want to ratify a treaty or an amendment or pick a VP, then that's up to the senate.

Really the problem is that the federal government has way too much power. He's not supposed to matter as much as he does now. The federal government is mainly supposed to be a way for the state governments to coordinate effectively, not be an overreaching dictatorship.

No, ID is not needed in order to vote. Only to get your name on the voter rolls. If I know my buddy Jim down the street is registered, I can go to the polling place, say I'm Jim, and vote in his place as long as he didn't get there before me. It's a system based on more honesty than we have as a society these days.

The system is fine, it's the Republicans that need to change.

>Why isn't Cali broken up in more States

Because it doesn't want to be. Such decisions are left at the hands of the States, not the Federal government.

This is gonna be a bit hard for a Russian to grasp, but in America, the Federal government actually has some pretty strict limits on what it can or cannot do, an the States are seen as mostly equal partners in perpetual union with the Federal government.

Besides, if you're gonna break up California, then other large states like Texas should also be dissolved into smaller states, while probably tiny states like North and South Dakota should be combined into a single state.

Hang on, I have a map...

Economic importance is not taken into account in democracy. You are basically saying:
>the richer the better
Because as you know GDP measures income, also. Your logic is really bad.

america is not a democracy, fuck california if they have more people

1 state 1 vote

>Salt Lake
this would be cool. I hate the name Idaho, I would rather anything else besides Idaho.

Well, if they're equals before the law, they should matter the same when electing the President.

No, it's a republic. And the electoral college system is fundamentally like a republic -- groups of people based on population elect a representative to represent them in the electoral college.

But I agree with you that winner take all is pretty questionable.

>It's a system based on more honesty
I don't know what to say.

I don't think a Russian has any business telling other countries about electoral reform. But besides that, getting rid of the electoral college would only benefit the democrats. See

Then Cali, and the rest of the states should stop being winner takes all.

Split works fine in maine and neb.

that's what I said, since it's not a democracy there's no reason why the population-size of states must matter

...

No shit Sherlock. If Hillary wins all the immagrants she brings in will vote Democrat and then we are Germany

Well I suppose one alternative would be to have individuals elect electors by population as is done now, and then state governments can each appoint one or two state-level electors as we (used) to do with senators.

And then those two bodies can have equal power in agreeing on who gets to be the president, just like how congress works. Or maybe even do it like the president is elected by popular vote and the vice president is elected by state vote.

A fucking dot

We only have to remove "winner take all" states like Illinois.

Everywhere in Illinois that isn't SHITcago will go red, those electoral votes would really help.

This. Trump knows the system is flawed and he knows he'd easily win in a fair system.

DRAIN THE SWAMP

Our entire governmental structure is based on people individually and voluntarily participating, being informed, and acting with integrity. Innocent until proven guilty and all the rest.

You'll notice it was invented almost entirely by rather intelligent and well-educated white European Christians. They didn't design it to account for a population that would be dumbed down by (((some people))) and dominated by lazy nigger culture.

Germany is way better off than you. Whites are less than 50% and highly divided, unlike minorities which are all strongly Dem. This means that just another Dem cycle will assure, in the bleakest scenario, a Mexican/Multiracial USA, and the white genocide.

Why should California, a state with 38.8 million people in it, be counted equally with Wyoming, a state with barely more than 580,000 people in it?

Id rather over here than over there with them sandniggers

Hate to break it to you, but the President has absolutely no power whatsoever to do this.

hes gonna get rid of all them democrat voting spics

We need to take the power away from the states in general. The vote should be based on the majority of votes for the entire country, fuck this winner take all bullshit. Thanks to that California liberals have a stranglehold over half the state.

Because States are equal before the law, no? Why is demographics taken into account?
You either
a) get a direct election, or
b) get a state-based election where all States matter the same
Your system is cloudy and flawed and it is an incentive to importing minorities. Just get the option a and get those ID laws ffs.

He's got a bully pulpit and significant cultural and political influence, though. Those are necessary preconditions for creating the circumstances necessary to effect some kind of change, if any.

When's the last time you came to Sup Forums and started brainstorming on how to improve our electoral system?

>Because States are equal before the law, no?

No. Each state gets two Senators. But the number of representatives in the House from each state is based on Population. From Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

>Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

You can't vote unless you're registered to vote; you can't register to vote unless you can prove citizenship. Illegal immigrants don't vote, and the President absolutely lacks the power to boot out legal citizens of the US.

Trump can do nothing to change demographics.

Yeah, but a bunch of cities in solid red states would go blue and give electoral votes the other way. For example Atlanta would give a lot of Georgia's EV's to the democrats.

Do you guys even think about this shit for second? The system is flawed, but it is not fundamentally unfair for either side.

>get a direct election

A direct election is a bad idea, since it allows demagogues like Napoleon or Hitler to come to power based on popular appeal, whether or not they'd actually be good for the country.

The intent of the Electors is to ensure that mob mentality can't triumph. A person can be smart, but people are panicky and stupid. The check on the Electors is the fact that every single one of them can be voted out of office within 2-6 years, ensuring that if the Electors consistently screw over the People, they don't get to stay Electors.

>get a state-based election where all States matter the same

But all states don't matter the same. All states are guaranteed equal protections under Federal law, but that doesn't change that the needs of California are more important than the needs of Wyoming. Thus, the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

However, it is also recognized that the people of Wyoming shouldn't be screwed over by Californians. Thus, the Senate.

Every system is flawed; our system is the least flawed since it's the only one that takes those flaws into account and tries to forge something fair out of them, actively trying to screw the least number of people.

bullshit illegals vote all the time even fucking dead people vote lol

Popular representatives =/= equality before the law.
You presidential election system practically says 'you matter nothing' to the state of Wyoming because that 3 is insignificant. In fact Wyoming has not a say in the presidential election. Having 3 is like having 0, Wyoming matters nothing.

The only way to fix a broken system like America's is to make it so every county in every state gets one secured delegate each, and whole states can't be won. An example is New Hampshire. There are 10 total counties in that state. If trump wins 6 and clinton wins 4, that is 6 to donald and 4 to the cuntbag. Easy solution for a fair election.

If Wyoming had voted for Gore in 2000 he would have won. Of course those 3 electoral votes matter. But instead they voted for Bush, giving him 271. So Wyoming decided the 2000 election (as did every other state).

>To all Ameribros here.. You guys have to

not your personal fagget army

>Sup Forumsack would prevent hitler or napoleon from ascending to power
Fuck the fuck off

>as did every other state
The only states that matter have been flooded and brainwashed by Dems. You Ameribros may like your system, but now it's a surefire Dem victory ad libitum. White Americans are fucked big time.

>The only states that matter have been flooded and brainwashed by Dems. You Ameribros may like your system, but now it's a surefire Dem victory ad libitum. White Americans are fucked big time.
And direct election willn't fix the problem.

Voter fraud accounts for significantly less than 1% of all votes in the United States, according to literally every single metric and attempt at measuring it from both parties. It is statistically irrelevant.

Nothing but Republicans are stopping Republicans from having a bigger slice of the minority pie.

Democrats don't need brainwashing. When Republicans endorse and flock in droves to a candidate who continuously demonstrates lack of respect and outright hostility towards black and Latino concerns, why would blacks and Latinos ever vote Republican?

Republicans do more to damage their own reputation among minorities than Democrats could ever try to spin or fake, and they do it for free.

Trump could have won if he was just a populist nationalist in the sense of doing all of the things he wanted except building the wall. That was the problem, a huge part of the country are already minorities, and he shit on them like they weren't here already. Now Hispanics are turning out in swing states in big numbers and he is probably going to lose, what a surprise.

I know that is something Sup Forums cares about, but literally talking about a wall was retarded. He should have just said he was going to tighten immigration like a lot of other countries and bring in better people until the economy improves. It's an ok sound bite, it doesn't really matter what the reality is. People just hear "economy is bad, I agree with that, and we should only let in experienced professionals and high value people until the economy improves, and so we should restrict immigration for a while. That sounds reasonable enough". You make it into an economic issue instead of a race issue.

As far as refugees he could have just said "we will take in a couple thousand, the ones that really need it, but the vetting process is hard so we can't risk our national security on too many". People will accept that more than "ban all Muslims! If you're Muslim you aren't coming in!"

He was just retarded. America is never going to be racially homogenous or an ethnic state unless it Balkanizes into ethnic states or a crazy dictator literally starts murdering and expelling minorities. Pandering to WNs and racial fears is a losing strategy.

>willn't
holy

>Democrats don't need brainwashing
Modern Liberalism IS idealistic brainwashing. Being a Dem is a result of media pressure and social pressure. This is why the more independent a person is, the more they lean socially right, while the more pressured by the media and the environment a person is, the more they lean socially left.

>outright hostility towards black and Latino concerns,
For example?

Sorry, a little drunk.

We need to get a ballot initiative in CA to split the electoral vote by congressional district. Spend a shitload of money on Spanish ads and say this will help better represent "individual communities and diverse groups"

Not only that but a Clinton presidency with more illegals and refugees brought in will only give the dems more votes in 2020

>Why isn't Cali broken up in more States?
This will make more democrat states. I don't want more democrat senators.