Redpill me on the electoral college

Redpill me on the electoral college

Why do we still have it? Would you consider it fair?

Other urls found in this thread:

learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html#2
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The electoral college was thought up by the Founding Fathers to limit the power of large states (at the time, Virginia).

You may disagree with it, but it worked exactly as it was designed to on election night. It prevented one state (in this case, California) from having way too much sway over the final outcome. It worked 100% as the Founding Fathers intended.

No commonwealth nation elects its leader via direct national popular vote either

Guarantees that good upright states like Wyoming are still heard, even when degenerate states like Cuckifornia have a huge majority in favor of crooks.

I guess it wouldnt be fair to have megacities, all voting for the same thing, to silence other smaller states.

i.e California deciding for the politics of all the country.

We have the popular vote in france, it means Paris and it's surrounding decides everything for the country.

That's why nobody cares about the countryside and every french agricultural businesses are slowly dying.

So instead of the big states deciding about the future it's the swing states

the idea behind it is good, but it gives too much power to states with almost no residents.

would you rather have the main focus of Politics how much free shit they will give to the illegals they import to fill California?

It's designed to shift the balance of power away from the large coastal states with the biggest cities. We still have it because that is a necessary balance - small (population) states provide more to the bigger ones than vice versa so their voice in government must be protected. America's success still rests on its ability to sustain itself in terms of food and natural resources. It's not as fair as it could be and I think it should be reformed but the principle is necessary to uphold the constitution.

*you still have it

>no resident

oh, you mean the farming states full of fields which feed all the nation ? yeah, we don't want to hear shit about them.

fucking jap

This election was not decided by swing states, though.

Trump converted states that the democrats thought were true blue 100% wins.

Look at all this red.
This is the overwhelming amount of trump support cross country.

The electoral college is the only reason the densely populated liberal leaning city centers don't entirely control the outcome of an election.

Doesn't it seem fucked that those tiny blue zones make up ~half of our total population?

Those states happen to be the centers of agriculture and industry in the USA.

This. I'm from the city and I even get it.

you mean like, michigan?

No stupid. Trump won because he stole traditional blue states from Hillary.

This election was a blowout electorally, Trump flipped multiple hard blue states.

If we had a pure democracy, California and NY welfare recipients would own American politics.

non shit-post question, since the electoral votes is based of population anyways, why is this better than a direct democracy?

The problem is with the winner takes all method. They should be distributed between the canditates, like if Trump gets 70% of the votes in a state he gets 70% of the delegates
You could do this by reducing the amount of delegates in California.

So it's fair that some faggot in Idaho's vote is worth more than someone in New York?

electoral college votes / population = voting power per person

It's a fucking retarded system

Exactly the same here.
The only reason shit tier leftist parties stayed in power all this time is because they imported voters.
In time we will have growing islamic parties if we don't fight NOW, because those rodents are outbreeding us by the millions.
We need change, fast.

learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html#2

There.
Fuck california btw.

False. States with no residents (like Wyoming) give only 3 electorate votes. That's not a lot of power. Be mad at the liberals for being retarded, not the system.

It's fairly retarded in its current form, but the problem is, one of two sides is going to win, and the side that does isn't going to support changing it.

Yes, this election, but not in every election. Also, why would someone who wants to vote Trump even bother to go voting in California? If it was deicded purely by popular vote, every vote counts the same so a Trump supporter in California or a Clinton supporter in Texas has a legitimate reason to go voting

I'd rather have a rotating carousel of swing sates than Texas, Cali, New York, etc., every time.

Queen Elizabeth can veto anything in your Parliament and draft your men into her wars. Serfdom and Peasantry are retarded systems.

So let me get this straight - democrats control most populous states in the US and they still win popular vote only by 0,1% margins.

If the system was changed then I'm sure more republicans from California and other solid blue states would vote, because right now their vote is meaningless.

The fact that people can win the election with less of the popular vote wthan the other candidate is not a flaw, it's by design.

politicians if they were going entirely for the popular vote would overwhelmingly campaign in more populous dense areas. You simply can win more votes in less time. Electoral college system ensures that smaller states are not just completely ignored and a tyranny of the majority situation ends up happening with politicians just handing Cali New York and Texas pork constantly to win votes.

I would argue the ratios are a bit messed up and while a vote in a smaller state should be worth more, it shouldn't be as worth as much as it is now.

Read the fucking Federalist papers

Seems to me it's designed to give smaller states a say in the process. If it were down to population then they might as well not exist.

The system seems to favor a candidate that can garner support from a wide geographic span.

Have fun being outbred by rodents who will claim power by numbers.
the Electoral college is far from perfect, but it's better than a popular voting system. Keeps the power balanced.

Not really. What constitutes a swing state is polling near election time. See how Trump's anti free trade coalition helped him win the rust belt, which have been blue states for a few elections.

And in the case of big states deciding the pop. vote, it'd actually just be the big cities. Take a look at pic related, my home state of Illinois 2012 race for Governor. That blue county in the top right is Chicago. Guess who won the race?

yes it's fair, it forces the candidates to work for every state and group of people rather than pandering to the majority. big cities wanted clinton, everyone else wanted trump. i think it's a fair outcome

Nopeople states like Alaska have 3 votes. California has 55.

The point of a union of states is that they're all represented. Big states get more votes, but not to an overwhelming degree. If we went by popular vote we'd either end up with a left-wing mob rule dictatorship, or the Union would fly apart at the seams as entire regions of the country realize they have flat zero say in their national government.

Forgot pic related.

Its to protect the flyover states from getting fucked by new york, california, etc.

If California was a country, it would have the 6th largest economy in the world. Why don't they get more sway?

>power resides in the big cities in populous states
>they use it to keep fucking the majority of other states

This is why Trump cracked the rust belt, the "safety net". If it was down to the popular vote gibs&socialism would win every time until there were no rich people left to rob.

> Would you consider it fair?

If the popular vote was what win the presidency, all candidates would just campaign inside the big cities of NY, California, Texas and Florida. Every other place would be ignored.

I would however like to see rank voting implemented in some way so those who live in solid red or blue states will go vote instead of thinking their votes doesn't matter and it will make 3rd parties more viable.

every state used to be a swing state until non whites became a large percentage of the population

how is that any different than having the popular vote win

>Why don't they get more sway?

55 fucking electoral votes is a pretty big fucking sway compared to the other states.

And Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

And Minnesota and Virginia were neck and neck.

"Several dozen faggot leftists and degenerate minorities don't have the same voice as actual Americans"
Fify

It's not even the big states, it's the big cities. Half the blue states are solid fucking red except for one or two liberal giant stronghold cities.

The political interests of Los Angeles and San Diego are far removed from the interests of an Ohio corn farmer. Both have to be represented. Under a popular vote system only the votes of the big cities would matter because then the 100% surefire way to win the election would be to pander like mad to the big cities and ignore everything else.

The Electoral College forces a candidate to win across America, it forces them to pay attention to the smaller states and rural areas.

i have a question
How did trump get the vote of past 100% blue states?

If you didn't have the electoral college, the politicians would spend 99% of their time campaigning and advocating for metropolitan areas where the population. This would effectively silence the voice of all the people living in rural areas., which is a significant minority of about 20%.

memes

>actual Americans
>uneducated white trash

Actually, you're 100% correct. Ignore my first post

What party of the left has been in power in Europe? Historically the left support working class like farmers.

I think you're mistaking them for liberals, centrists.

Because we're all just getting sick of this shit we call a country.

Trump represented something different, which we wanted.

Also Hillary straight up fucked herself by not campaigning properly.

The electoral college needs review, but the idea makes sense to me. It stops the states with lower population density from being ignored when it comes to deciding what direction the country should go in.

A lot of the states he flipped have been hemorrhaging blue-collar jobs for decades. He promised to bring these jobs back. Turns out people really like having jobs. Turns out they like having jobs enough to take their states back from lazy inner-city dindus who don't care about jobs.

After reading this thread I now understand why we have the electoral college. And my respect for the founding fathers wisdom increases even more.

Now my only current problem is fucking faithless electors even being possible.

Not low population density, low population

Literally fewer people are given a larger share of voting power

Can someone give me a link to a popular vote results tracker?

I think AP or something had Trump actually projected to win the popular vote now.

>I would argue the ratios are a bit messed up and while a vote in a smaller state should be worth more, it shouldn't be as worth as much as it is now.

I would argue you should not gain more votes because your state is full of millions poor stupid people.

Under a popular vote system they would have 0% of the political power, and the residents of the biggest dozen or so cities would have 100% of it.

Is that really better?

Reminder that Trump is going to win the Popular vote

> Texas
> red

How to argue popular vote,

How many felons voted in VA? Might be the difference in the popular vote total.

They stop counting votes after reach 270 electoral votes?

They would have their fair representative share of voting power. The same as every other American. It is the definition of fair

No, because idaho is worth 4 electoral votes, NY is worth 29


The fact is hillary only won the popular vote because of LA and NYC basically, while trump won consistently literally everywhere else in the country

in case you didn't know, the left in europe doesn't support working class anymore since the 90's, because of the cold war. they're societally progressive but business liberals.

Trump appealed to middle America that he will bring back the manufacturing jobs that they once had. Don't know about your part of the world but everything is made in China and Mexico here. Everything.

>if the plebs find out that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, they will vote themselves bread and circuses.

I like it because it ensures smart people's vote counts more than just dumb people's votes

The reasoning behind the electoral vote system was explained to me in elementary school.

maybe she couldn't cause she is literally dying?

No, they wouldn't. You're assuming the big cities actually represent diverse voting demographics when they don't. The politicians would campaign in the big cities, pander to nothing but their interests, they would decide the election, and the votes of every single person in a flyover state wouldn't matter in the slightest.

it protects us from idiocracy.

You know I've always been pretty left (well as left as we get in the USA) and I've questioned the point of the electoral college before but I think this past election has actually done a good job at showing why its a good thing.

The whole point of the states is that they have a degree of independence from the main country and how fucked it could be if one or two of those states decided everything. Its still an issue because nowadays it all just falls on the swing states to decide but its better than the alternate I guess

They get 55 fucking votes

because the united states are, well, united states, it's a fair voting system for a federation

No. A good compromise would be by congressional district: one elector for the winner of each district, two to the statewide winner.

Example: Clinton wins California, and forty of its fifty-three congressional districts. She would thus get forty-two electoral votes, and Trump thirteen.

Would be nice. Also very chaotic, as pollsters simply have no good way to poll districts, if history is any guide. So you'd probably see "Trump up 15 points in this New York district" followed the same day by another poll saying Clinton up seven in the exact same district. Also, all the arguing and by-district electoral maps would be amazing.

Still, Democrats, for all their voters' howling about the electoral college right now, will not be getting rid of it. The electoral college gives them a big edge, as detailed by The Washington Post, and they'd be damn fools to switch to a direct popular vote, and the congressional district idea they'd never go for, as the districts are too gerrymandered in favor of Republicans by GOP-controlled state legislatures.

Just because a group of people is a minority shouldn't mean they get to have a proportionally larger voice compared with everyone else

Reminder that USA is UNION of STATES, not democracy

The electoral system is a way to balance out the sway of densely populated cities against the rest of the country. We are not a monolithic country, but a massive federation of states. Non-burgers really underestimate the vast cultural, social, and economic differences between general groups of states (New England, Midwest, South, West Coast), and having the each of those cultural sphere's influence be counted is critical.

If you honestly think it makes sense that California and New York City dictate the direction of the entire rest of the country, you are fucking stupid or selfishly just want the Dems to be the defacto rulling party indefinitely.

Reminder that California and New York city are the two biggest cancers in this country
Even Trump managed to have a large percentage vote him even though he lost this deep blue state. Unlike fucking California. Fuck California thinking it needs more say.

In Plato's Republic, he argues that the most fundamental issue with democracy is the issue of "mob rule." If you've taken even beginner college lit classes you should be familiar with this. The idea is that under mob rule, one sect of people can gather together and infringe on the autonomy of the minority sects.

The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent this from happening. America shouldn't be dictatorially ruled by the interests of high density urban centers. For the survival of the union, rural America must have a say.

That is necessary for a minority voting block to have ANY VOICE AT ALL in a winner-takes-all system where a single voting block represents a majority, you dumb cunt.

So if you think we shouldn't let everyone have a fair say because they'll lead us in the wrong direction, why even have elections at all?

Because this is Sup Forums and most here are hypocrites

You have it because you are 50 separate countries working together and need a system that allows even the smallest of those countries to have some influence over your joint leadership.

I think we should give black people 2x voting power because they are a significant minority, and In a winner take all system they have NO VOICE AT ALL

>If California was a country
>if
Give them some time for calexit :^)

The real problem is demographics are changing and our politicians are dumbing down the electorate

America 50 years ago was too smart and too white for all this communist lefty nonsense

Now the democrats import hordes of foreigners to replace voting blocs and tell us it's for the good of the country as they buy their votes with welfare.

When our country began you had to be a white landowner to vote

Now California is allowing non citizens to vote.

Everyone having an equal vote is fine and the electoral college does a good job of equal representation but giving people with no interest in defending your nation a say in it's future is suicide.

Have fun with that in Canada.

It's very fair.

States in the US have relatively great autonomy, and this way they are pretty solidly represented.

The number of electoral votes a state gets depends on population, btw.

It's the Republic in our governmental system entitled Democratic Republic. In my opinion a full democracy isn't even a good thing because there would be no stopping the shit storm of retarded cucks

I'm actually complete against direct democracy. Fuck direct democracy.

>hillary only won the popular vote because of LA and NYC

because you think 50milllion people live in LA and NYC? Stop being a dumb fuck. People still voted for Hilary in red states the same way the blue states had Trump voters.

both the popular vote and the EC are fair but in different ways. Popular vote is just pure -every vote counts- and it gives area with a higher pop more say. As they should being it's where policy will effect the most people.
Yet the EC lets all states have a say and that's important too. Even if the entire midwest is nothing but welfare states sucking the fed tit. Too worried about religion, guns and who some one else might fuck and/or if that stranger's family planning to even know about the other issues.

yet the biggest issue is still that only 49% or so of the eligible voters even bothered to vote. So that's enough voters just sitting on their ass to elect a 3rd party or tilt any election but they were too lazy.

>leave the US
>die of starvation as their water runs out and electricity infrastructure collapses

the true redpill would be that people have the power over the government, not electorates. However, doesn't really work with voter fraud and a crooked MSM.

Regardless, DJT still has a chance of winning this popular vote, so don't rule it out yet.

Pic related is CNN projecting him as the winner.

We need to Balkanize the fucking cesspit that is Commiefornia. There are quite a few regional identities in that swathe of land.

Seriously fuck the democracy. Chances that what I vote for will win are so slim that I'd take my chances with a dictator who makes his own choices to be real. Same chances.

Yeah I think it's fair. States need a voice. Trump lost the popular vote by a narrow margin of 200k or so, but had a landslide in the electoral college. Each state goes by popular vote, but not the whole country. This is because of the fact that we have states at all. If California suddenly gets a massive jump in population yet still votes Dem they shouldn't have an unopposed voice against the entire rest of the states.

I was kind of memeing, but I think democracy is stupid. The average person is too fucking dumb to be allowed to make decisions on real nuanced & complex issues. I like trump, but the only reason he won is because he dumbed his campaign down to "make America great again", and the retards fell in love