Is it right for some votes to count more than others?

...

Yes. That is why republics last longer than democracys

It's wrong that a black vote counts as much as my vote. Votes should based on the amount of GDP you generate.

Yes. It means high population centers can't fuck over rural states.
You could almost say it gives [spoiler]minorities[/spoiler] a voice

>republic of south africa

Uhh... that's not how it works buddy. You're electoral system is far from perfect. Suppose it suites your federal system well.

Yes
t. Ohioan.

Yes because considering illegals and non citizens voted

Ya aint giving us money

Yes, votes for vagina should be discarded

Only if it's for the candidate I like, otherwise it's literal facism

It's in place so the dumb masses can't pick a person that will destroy America. So many are uneducated and misinformed. This shit helps to make sure those retards are kept in check.

How is it possible?

The vast majority of the black vote really doesn't matter though as most of them live in the south and the south goes Republican anyway.

What makes more sense
>This
>Or Hillary getting 60 million votes in the major cities, winning only 3 states, but still winning the election?

sure it's an exaggeration but it represents the point

yes, because otherwise, some states would be forever put on the side, and only big cities from the coasts would decide

Having a voice for each states is the right thing to do about a country as big as the USA

You stupid nigger, don't you remember the 3/5ths compromise?

It was never your vote. The electoral college votes belong to your state. You vote to instruct the state who to vote for.

We should return to state legislators selecting senators too apparently. Especially with some of the retards we've been getting lately.

this

Yes. This is the reason why the electoral college was invented, so that the states who didn't have the vast majority of the population such asTexas, California, New York, and Florida won't completely dominate every election. The electoral college is there to make sure the states with smaller populations still matter, and that the farmers can be counted along the cucked denizens of LA.

YES.

Like here in Norway, most people in Oslo don't know shit about the life outside the city, or they just don't care. They also have larger numbers of votes. We need to prevent liberal shitheads in the city fucking up the countryside.

No its fair. Its well known illegals compose a majority of the high value states so, per person electoral value being shit there is fair.

Also fuck the democrat party and every dumb nigger, spic, and mudslime that voted for Hillary. Deserve to be lynched.

When an American registers to vote, their name and address is put on a list. When they arrive to vote, they give their name and address and the employee crosses it off of a list. They do not confirm your identity as it's illegal to ask for ID in some states (or all of them?). If you knew you neighbor was registered, you could go to the station and use their information and vote.

Yes.

It's the United States of America.

States!

Its only illegal literally cause democrats made it so.

Fuck the democrat party. They cant compete without cheating.

I can't wait until they find out what a fucking Demon she is. Trump is was only the beginning of lib tears.

The democrats stole and fraud a lot of votes, fuck them, even with that they still lost

Is my info accurate, by the way? Do they actually just cross you off of a paper list?

Don't forget about the military vote. They still need to be counted. There just needs a little more than 200,000 of military men and women to vote for Donald Trump and fill in the popular vote deficit. The military has been consistently pro-Trump.

I think landowners votes should count more than someone on welfare.

XD Retard!

How can libs be this butthurt when President Obama himself was supporting illegal voting?

Like doesn't your brain kick in at some point and tell you that someone fishy is going on in the Democratic Party?

You get checked against a computer, and you sign your name on a paper list.

XD how do people believe this rubbish? XD

It's my understanding that military votes are not counted unless they could potentially flip an election.

*knocks you out*

heh...sweet dreams kid...

XD Americans. Fucking hilarious...

Maybe your brain should kick in and then you can realize that liberals don't believe "obama himself was involved in illegal voting"

Why is Sup Forums so stupid about this? Why do they always ask questions like this?

>hurr durrr why do people who disagree with me about facts not base their decisions on what I believe the facts are?

That's correct, though some states have an electronic voter roll.

There's also no body that audits the list, so dead people and those who move are still left on the list.

As a personal anecdote, when I was arrested by the FBI and sent to prison for 2 years, I was still left on the voter roll in NC, so I could have still been voting from jail, even though I legally lost my right to vote until I finished my sentence. There was nobody there to update the list and take my name off.

Yes, we need to go back to counting them as 3/5ths.

If Hillary won she probably would have made it illegal to requires voters to register.

Then we wouldn't need ID's, or names, or addresses, or any sort of checks :^)

Every vote is counted eventually. Based on the percent of votes in, pundits are usually able to call a state before the absentee ballots are counted though.

We have a census every 10 years. It's 2016. The electoral votes will be vastly different in 2020. Another reason why this election was so important.

>Is it right for some votes to count more than others?

we started this country by having only landowning white men vote. Since then we have given universal suffrage and look what the fuck happened.

Any recipient of any type of welfare from the state should lose his or her chance to vote.

They were counted as 3/5ths for the census. Ironically, illegal immigrants are now included in the census. States like California and New York are actually getting more electoral votes than they would without those illegals.

I see a bunch of people saying this, but where is the proof? Or is it just a hypothesis?

There is not a single pure democracy in the world.
This is done to prevent the larger states from always swinging the elections in their favor. If it was not like this, California and NY would completely dominate the US election every time.

Yes. Electoral college exists for a reason:

Under a pure democracy it goes like this:
Rural farmer: "hey your regulations are strangling me, I can't afford to grow food to feed you or my family"
City person: "lol shut up farmer boy. Go grow my food, you hick. We voted as a democracy and the cities voted against you."

Come on, tell us what you did.

They all count the exact same, since electoral vote count is weighed by population.

Wut

are all the numbers in fukface? no? the fucking go on sudoku watch!

Census counts all residents, not just citizens.

Update it and make the Mexicans count as 2/5ths.

Two districst decided the vote of an entire state lol

I've posted about it here before. I didn't include it because it tends to derail threads.

>goy tries to steal from the jew banks
>goy gets caught
>goy goes to prison

That's me on the left with a chapter president of the Mongol bike gang.

You wouldn't want some places to be under represented just because everyone lives in the cities.

If you would abolish the winner-takes-all system the republicans will win every election in the next years because suddenly all those million rep votes in california or new york would count which are far more than the few dem votes from texas or utah.

They shouldn't count at all. It should only count legal residents. California shouldn't get more representation in Congress because they decided to flood their state with illegal immigrants.

XD butthurt faggots, will they ever stop producing salty tears? XD

>he think popular vote in the electoral college system would translate to the popular vote in a popular vote system

The popular vote in an electoral college system doesn't take into account all of the Trump supporters who live in Californa and New York and other traditionally blue states that didn't go out to vote because their states are going to go blue no matter what. It also doesn't take into account that candidates campaign differently in an electoral college system, focusing more on swing states and ignoring states they stand no chance in.

Libcucks are retarded.

That's not strictly true, rural states get disproportionate representation int the electoral college, not that I'm complaining.

Yes, illegal aliens voting democrat should count -1.

Yes. Take the extreme example. If NY & California become too large and are continually given delegates that represent their size then they will take total precedence. Smaller states will be utterly worthless and neither candidate will offer anything to help them.


Smaller states still need adequate representation despite their populations.

I'm also including the legal ones, they lose a fifth to make up for the illegals.

They dont its because voting is voluntary so some people will vote more in certain states making it so some states votes seem like they are weighted when theyre actually not

JUST TO WATCH TRUMP DIE
sorry i will hang my self

If people are concerned about the popular vote for being respected, wouldn't it make sense to favour more autonomy for the states themselves?

> lol
> a bunch of smileys in other messages
Wtf is happening? Did the Trump victory attract reddit?

Mr. Trump has won the election, probably without without winning the majority of the popular vote, though some votes are still being counted.. But the likely final vote will have neither of them over 50%, she did not get the majority either. And iot will be close enough that a MASSIVE recount would be about to start, Florida Bush/Gore times 50.

Constitutionally, the Electoral College elects the President – the college is chosen on election night, wins and losses by Clinton and Trump in the states were mostly decisive.

We have a “first past the post” system that requires 50%+1 of the electing vote to win the Presidency – in the absence of the electoral college, we would have nobody at the threshold of 50% and would now be waiting for the new Congress to be sworn in so that the US House could select the new President

The Congress would select the new President with each state getting one vote. The incoming congress will have 31 or 32 states with a GOP majority (there are still a few too-close-to-call races that might swing a state) – the end result of that would be what we have now, later and with more fighting and campaigning.

Ideally, the President would always be elected with the majority of the vote cast. That is a difficult ideal to achieve in the real world without strictly limiting the number of candidates for whom people can vote to two, and I’m not sure that is an acceptable option. Our system is designed to ensure that the several states remain important political entities with some power (that goal may be obsolete, but that is not universally accepted) and, in the modern era, give us a clear winner with rules everybody knows going in, while keeping the voter as close as possible to the center of the decision and ensuring an elected President enjoys wide, though not universal, support. That system is not perfect, but it did what it is designed to do. We had basically a tie vote, we need a single President.

They've been here the entire election shilling for Hillary. Looks like they're too dumb to find the way back so we're stuck with them now.

Your understanding is faulty.

LOL if you did that the koch brothers would have picked scott walker and told every shut up and take it

Though there is precedent for just sittingon your hands and refusing to hold a census.

I would not condone it, but it was done in the run-up to prohibition being passed, in order to prevent the incoming congress from being more heavily urban, where immigrant populations tended to vote more "wet."

oh hi *smacks head* you like it shithead? if you dont back off you will get more *put knife at your neck*you better back off sweet summer child or you will end up bleeding *smirk*, now get out *points to reddit*

Romey had the popular vote and obongo told him to fuck off.

Left are just hypocrites

Yes.

The electoral college exists to prevent big population states from determining the election.

Imagine if we had no electoral college. Candidates would just pander to Californians, Texans, and New Yorkers.

Having a small failure rate is much better than having 80% of the country ignored.

And census determines the number of electoral votes a state gets -- but does not define who is eligible to vote.

If you're net positive you should get one vote. Net negative zero votes.

Also, married homemakers/raising kids should get one vote.

Yes. The United States is meant to be a union of sovereign states.

Also, Americans don't directly vote for their president - they vote and in accordance with the state results, the state's electoral college members cast their own votes for the president.

This is a very deliberately and purposeful system. Not only does this degree of FPTP/winner-takes-all in (most of) the states mean that they're rightfully represented in the college by the wishes the majority within their state vote for, but it also means that if there is a presidential candidate who the majority of the state DON'T want (especially, for instance, an incumbent one), that the state's decision for their electors is clear in this opposition.

FPTP is a flawed system. It fundamentally cuts corners to democratic principle and means that votes are discounted. But it also ensures that unpopular candidates do not win within the voting constituencies/states and are less likely to win in the broader election.

Lastly, speaking in terms of the president as the head of state: having an election for executive power be proportional is far more potentially dangerous and unstable than having FPTP. Rather than a president being elected by the wishes of the states of the union, if a simple majority across the entire nation condensed in areas that have specific interests and high populations chose to elect a president then it could potentially cause damage to other states, the union, and the constitution. States wouldn't even come into it, despite the USA being a union of states.

Remember: the first constitution of the US was the Articles of Confederation, and the political project of the US was always intended to be a union of sovereign states. The EC is the last protection states have to ensure they're properly represented in the political system.

So states flooded with illegals get inflated electoral votes even if the illegals aren't voting (they are).

Electoral votes are derived by adding the number of congressional districts in a state (largely determined by population, but every state gets at least one) and the Senate delegation, which is always two.

If my state has one district and your state is twice as populous so has two districts, mine gets three electoral votes and yours gets four.

Of course, MOST states have more than one district, so the skew is not usually that exaggerated.

Is it right for 3 cities to count more then 35,000 cities?

This, but it is "electors," "delegates" are for the conventions, and their numbers are derived by different formulae.

FPBP
I can't imagine how shit this country would be if California, New York, and ILLINOIS had been calling the shots for the last 30 years.

>Be spic.
>Vote Trump so he can deport the overwhelming amount of illegals.
Im glad he won but I am dissapointed in my state.

certain people once had 3/5ths a vote

>Is it right for 3 cities to count more then 35,000 cities?

Underrated post.

Go fuck yourself:

New York City
San Francisco
Los Angeles

He's a big guy.

Obama 65,915,795
Romney 60,933,504

This is what pisses me off. It's obvious that the left is trying to push swing states into getting more brown people in their states so they can out number the right.


thats what happened to my county. Anyone old enough to remember how Clintons NAFTA agreement fucked over Bethlehem Steel and cost many people their jobs; but because we now have a bunch of imported chinks and brown people they made my county blue. Fuck this gay earth.

You're a fucking idiot. Obama won the popular vote over Romney by 4 points.

The first is correct, Teh second is often asserted but proof is lacking. I;d suggest that proof will remain lacking as long as nobody with the power to do so looks for it -- but I doubt the practice is sufficiently wide-spread to sway elections at a national level. I could be wrong, but there is no proof and little evidence of how much illegal voting there is.

In my experience working in some elections in NC, fraud is MUCH lore likely to come from tampering with the ballot box or voting machine than bringing in illegal voters.

They were once counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes, but were not allowed to vote at all.

Its a new CTR strategy.

Obama won the popular vote by 5 million votes in 2012.

He won by nearly 10 million votes against McCain in 2008.

What the fuck are you even talking about?