Electoral College

Can someone explain to me the advantage of the electoral college over the popular vote? Why is it a better system than the latter? I'm not a CTR fag I genuinely would like to know why it is a better representation of the people.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
tumblr.com/search/rachel cook
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Imagine, for a second, everything was decided by CA.

You know how many people we have here illegally, who get protected and would be allowed to vote? If it was by popular vote I'd be afraid to even show up to the polls. The riots you're seeing on TV are exactly how people act.

It's so people outside of population centers also get represented.

In Canada, for example, we have an (almost) similar system where things are broken up into "ridings", but they're disproportionately biased toward Ontario, so nobody else is realistically represented come voting time.

In a country as large as Canada or the USA, there are huge geological and industrial differences all over the place that make it really important to have things split up like this - Toronto and New York would be willing to pass laws that would harm farmers without a second thought.

...

there you go op

This explains a lot.

wew laddies

>tfw live in hidalgo county

>REPEATING IMAGES, KEK KNOWS

This is postulating that the vote or will of a person living in a low population density region should be worth more than that of a person living in a high population density region.

Why should a person voting in LA be worth less than a person voting in Kansas?

Come up with a better argument

What's going on here. This has happened twice today in the last couple hours. I was involved in the other one. Are they watching?

>
>

We live in a republic. We have states. States have power. We have limited federal government (in theory).

electoral college protects states with smaller populations from tyranny of the majority and by proxy federal control that errodes their state governing rights.

It would be like scotland getting a weighted vote since their population is less, but they have their own special interests.
very rarely does the electorate not line up with the populist vote, though

a bunch of faggots in california can't tell texas what to do basically.

Her hands and shoulders are weird looking.

America is a union of 50 states. The Electoral College makes it fairer for states with a lower population. Trump won in 30 of the 50 states, it is only fair that he becomes president.
Without the electoral college, the few large cities would be deciding the outcome.
Like I said, it makes it fair for all states.

We're the United States, not the United People.

Because there are naturally less people who live in rural environments who also have many different economic interests concerning their environment, it is important to be sure that because they are a minority in the country that the majority pays attention to their interests.

This was ultimately why the framers of the US constitution decided to divide the legislative branch of government into the house of representatives and the senate. It is called "the great compromise" because the states with smaller populations some influence on federal policy, hence the 2 senate seats for every state and the representation by population in the house.

It's not up for debate. The US is a federation of States. Which means, that representation is done by State and not by individual. An individual in Nevada has no say in the state of California and vice versa. So that's basically how that country was built and it can't change.

Because what happens in the low density areas is critically important to both the functioning and survival of the United States.

Most cities in the U.S. are deeply in debt, and have unsustainable financial policies. They spend money they don't have to draw more people into the city, because it's the only way for them to survive. They're basically ponzi schemes of migration and tourism. If they controlled the government outright, they would suck the life out of the country. Our rural areas would be decimated, our cities would expand endlessly, with little to contribute except barely taking care of themselves, until an ultimate collapse.

Seriously, think about it. Many people desire to go live out in the country, despite its inconveniences. Almost no-one would live in a city without their massive subsidies, and welfare, and cultural expenses, which go unpaid for. When these stop working, people flee. Just look at Detroit.

Furthermore, people in cities are more out of touch with rural communities than vice versa. As good as things are, we are always a hair's breadth from the end of civilization. If we simply ignored the rurals, we'd collapse faster, and be less prepared for when it happens. Cities aren't inherently good, they are simply necessary.

WOW

but wouldn't it make sense for cali to be weighted since there are more people living there?

Prager university has a video about this you should watch. Google it. Repost it. Etc

The electoral college only makes sense if you remember that we are a nation of states. We were originally independent of each other, largely sovereign. We have our own values and our own cultures. We realized that, by coming together, we could accomplish a shit ton more than anybody else in history. But there's no incentive for a smaller, less populated state to join with a more populous state if the more populous state is just going to impose its will. The electoral college is what makes use the *United States* of America, instead of just America.

FUCK OFF WITH YOUR POPULAR VOTE BULLSHIT SHILL

FUCK OFF OWL BOY
>FUCK OFF OWL BOY
FUCK OFF OWL BOY
>FUCK OFF OWL BOY
FUCK OFF OWL BOY
>FUCK OFF OWL BOY

Because Obama allows illegal aliens to vote.

stupid

Just because you live in a low density region, your vote is worth more.

Because in that way you can't tell most of the country to go fuck themselves and just pander to a few cities with populations in the millions.

OBVIOUS SHILL IS OBVIOUS OWL BOY

FUCK OFF OWL BOY
>FUCK OFF OWL BOY
FUCK OFF OWL BOY
>FUCK OFF OWL BOY
FUCK OFF OWL BOY
>FUCK OFF OWL BOY

This this this this this this this this
Seriously people, has common core failed this hard?

It is, hence why cali is 55 electoral votes

Why is this dumb bitch posing with protein powder?

Stops NY overruling the whole country.
Stops politicians being able to just appeal to big cities.
Forces accountability.
Makes electoral fraud harder.

The same reasons that FPTP is better than PR.
The people that came up with these systems knew full well what kind of nonsense the alternatives lead to.
We can see the nonsense the alternatives lead to in Germany and in Sweden.

weighted meaning greater importance. scotlands votes would count more than their population would suggest in a pure democracy.

i mean you have parliament thats basically the same thing right? cunts are elected to represent a region regardless of population they have the same say?

We're a hivemind.

It is weighted, that's why Cali gets the most Electoral Votes in the United States.

Not to mention, Electoral votes are proportioned by including not only citizens but also residents (meaning including illegal immigrants) and therefore gets a way bigger share of the Electoral Votes than they should.

oh ye lmao (((im))) retarded

It gives more voting power to people who live in small community. It is so city folk don't fuck everything up.

Go back read what the guy wrote

Yes it means for presidential elections populated states take a slight hit on their power but hey still have power on the House of Representatives

Our entire system is a giant balancing act of power

Stop getting fucking baited by these dipshits.

moar

because of population concentration

imagine you live in a rural or all red state but it only has 1000 habitants
meanwhile people in california and new york are over 5 000 000 and they will dictate how you live your life even though they will never set foot in inner usa, they only live in their mansions and cities
there

States have more autonomy.

Vote buying through welfare programs is harder

The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. If you don't like it, leave.

>The people that came up with these systems knew full well what kind of nonsense the alternatives lead to.
Bribro speaks the truth.

The founding fathers were sick of being ruled by all-powerful elites and sovereigns thousands of miles away. They wanted to make sure that, as the country expanded and grew, newer, smaller, less populated states would want to join up with the rest.

It's a federal republic

All states must be fairly represented, regardless of population. The electoral college does this

It ensures that the president represents the entire nature, culturally and demographically.
Otherwise population centers would determine elections and rural culture would be completely ignored. Eventually leading to resentment and revolution.
This is a direct result of the fact that the revolution happenned because the high population England made laws and policies that only favored England while ignoring the concerns of the low population colonies

It stops CA and NY from running the country. We weren't set up as a direct democracy for a reason.

No shit, get fucking used to it.

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

Don't listen to The individual voter in Cali has the least valuable vote in the entire nation, however this is a good thing because it makes imposing the will of the collective of California on states like Montana which have very small populations and very different economies.

Because you can get paid for advertising brands in conjunction with showing your body as success.

You can simply make money being a body builder in your mom's basement and getting endorsements.

Capitalism is alive everywhere, the problem is a large portion of people don't want to work much... at all.

There

It made sense in the 1800's because the 13 colonies were fucking HUGE and it took weeks for news to travel from one end to the other. Electoral voters existed to allow state representatives across the huge country to witness the voting process to ensure their votes were properly counted for and no shenanigans ensued.

Basically it means nothing today.

And if you want your vote to worth more, go there

Very pretty eyes.

*very difficult

some states have less people. Imagine if new york and cali could completely invalidate the desires of the other 30 or 40 states.

The rust belt for example, they used to be our manufacturing. Imagine if it was popular vote, their desires for the return of manufacturing would have been invalidated by college yuppies and la raza supporters on both coasts... but I digress.


The electoral system ensures that there is no political minority discrimination in regards to population and that the government of each state has more of a say in the next president than the people do.

The majority of the other blue ones are filled with minorities.

>everyone should be ruled by the politics of cities

fucking idiot, that would be a disaster

Eurofags, should individuals in Europe vote directly for EU leadership?

Of course not!

Get it through your skulls. State = country. USA = EU.

where is the bait cunt i'm learning

it's the thick limbal ring, it advertises health.

It favors people living in rural areas right? This was originally important in the context of Tariffs. 200 years ago, rural people wanted higher tariffs so the goods they produced wouldn't be undercut by imports. Urban elites wanted lower tariffs so they could more easily conduct trade. Settling new areas was an explicit goal of the nation at that point, so screwing over the incentive to settle new lands was not on the agenda

For fuck sake CTR, the EC is fucking skewed to the democrat's side regardless. They get the west coast, NYC and the upper East Coast. That is between 100-200 fucking votes already, fuck right off. If Obama didn't fucki g do anything to it, what makes you think you Hillary would if she had won?

Many people don't realize that our government is purposely structured to be deeply respondent to the will of the people, and yet structurally opposed at every level to the catastrophic volatility of public demands. Changes are meant to be very slow, and very deliberate. The different branches are not meant to get along. It's not built to run smoothly. It not only relies on conflict, but fosters it. Elections like this are meant to be rare occasions, and can pretty much only happen as a harsh response to uniform government overreach. In two years, the Republicans are likely to lose control of the house or senate. The most important thing Trump can do in that time is end the "Go along to get along" mentality of our government. Drastic changes should be nearly impossible, guaranteeing that it will only happen when there is a true and lasting public desire for it. This is how we create the effect of aristocracy, without needing to actually have one. The snowflakes are the ones destroying our republic, by silencing debate and instituting false compromise. The electoral college is one of the few remaining important checks on the public and any one complaining about it will be very happy to have it when they want to pull back legislation and executive action they believe to have gone too far.

Why do you feel the need to argue about something you know literally nothing about?

>fairer
What does "fair" mean if it results in an individual's vote being worth different amounts?

capitalism

Wrong

tumblr.com/search/rachel cook

mexiproxyfag needs to read federalist papers.

You are not a citizen of the US specifically, you are a citizen of your state which is a member of the USA.

Therefore, the popular vote determines allocation of your allotted points. Each state gets certain number of points.

The goal of the election is not to mob rule, but ensure the majority across all individual states are valid.

In other words, 3 cities can't control everything. Popular vote == mob rule. Constitutional Republic means, the states vote for a winner specifically for that state.

If enough states agree, that guy is president.

The electoral college was created to prevent establishment from picking a candidate, to be fucking honest, exactly to prevent HRC and the DNC from doing what they're doing.

Also not all votes are counted, pretty premature to say HRC won before military vote is counted.

Sage this mexican who's gotta get deported.

lol, did you get this one from tumblr or something?

Learning is an active process, think about it before you ask questions.

why should population density matter

1 person = 1 vote
the only fair way to do it

Electoral college makes it so that the 3 largest population centres in the US don't decide the fate of the entire nation, since the interests of the urban population are not the same as the interests of the rural population.

As far as reforms go, I wouldn't abolish the electoral college, but I would abolish winner-take-all and institute a proportional system.

As someone who didn't want trump to win, is from Commiefornia, is disappointed by the election and is e everything this board hate. Theres no way in hell I'd want us to use the popular vote. We have that in CA and its shit. You're swapping one small group with too much power except here everything is controlled by special interest groups that answer to no voters. If the the representatives fuck up they can be voted out of office eventually but imagine a system where you can go to a bar the day of the election and pay everyone 50 bucks to vote. In a popular vote system those people will effect the election. You can't really do that to an elector and if you try and someone finds out they'll lose their job. No one loses their job in the first scenario.

I had an idea for an analogy, pls r8 it


Imagine if in a hundred years the EU settles down into a large country. Would it be fair that Greeks, Italians, and Germans could legislate over France?
The very premis of the Union, what makes it possible to begin with, is respecting the autonomy of each state, and that's a covenant that should be honored in the future too, no matter how much the borders get erased.

In a similar manner, when the US formed, it was this premise of political autocracy that made the union possible.

Of course, come laws and governance should be shared, and population density taken into account, but as the individuality of each State is important, the electoral college was designed to give minor states a say.

In short, if the smaller states knew two hundred years ago that they were going to be in the shadows of Cali, NY and Florida, they wouldn't have joined. The laws that protect their political weight shouldn't just be discarded


I know shit of American history, though, when did the states become "united"?
All I know about separatism in the past comes from Wild Wild West

Those states always favor one party anyways. I know what you're trying to do, you seem to think that because the west coast is blue, that they are somehow worth less, well so is Texas, so is Florida, so is most of the states that always both red. The only people that matter is the flip-floppers, which go either Ddmocrat or Republican. Don't like it? Well you should complain to the states than never see beyond one color, not the ones that do, because they are the ones making their votes less valuable.

Don't be so naive. Go and read what was posted.

So Americans memed that Civics 101 picture, but I think the reason they have EC is more a historic necessity as the US is a federation of states. Maybe created as an incentive for smaller states to join the federation.

gril in OP is rachel cook if anybody's wondering

People in cities automatically have more political power, and greater capacity to speak publicly. They have more command over money, and create groups more easily. They also are more capable of adjusting to fundamental changes in the economy.

Those in rural communities have a harder time grouping together. They have less access to the press. They can make fewer changes to cope with a changing world. And yet, what they do for our country (like providing our food supply) is critical.

We absolutely do not want their financial interests in voting being swamped by people who's greatest interest in voting is how it makes them feel.

Has the military vote /really/ not been tallied in yet?

That's not true. Population is weighted into fucking electorals.

Go the fuck home mexifag.

You squatters make me laugh, not even understanding or trying to, the land you want to squat.

>system designed to stop people like trump from riding to power on a wave of populism

>he wins anyway

THE MADMAN

The electoral college actually enhances the importance of the vote of minority groups.

If the exact opposite happened and Trump lost despite getting the popular vote, Sup Forums would be calling for the end of the electoral college. You're only shilling for it because it won your guy the election.

In Ireland, Dublin is effectively the decider in every election. As a result, the government only puts money into Dublin turning the rest of the country into an underdeveloped wasteland.

chances are no, as they are absentee ballots typically. They are generally the last to be counted. Good of people to ignore their right to vote tho or results. More fucking worried about urban areas which steal from rural areas, then wonder why they can't pick everything.

stupid mexicans are causing this bullshit.

Why should the majority of voters elect the future of the nation?

What a man from a big city knows about the needs of a man from a rural area needs?

It would make the whole country work around some few cities while the rest of the country starve.

Because different geographical regions have different needs. My needs are not the needs of people in NY state. Letting NY have extra say over what happens here will cause problems.

exactly. its all about separation of powers, making sure no one branch or one demographic can gain too much power

You might be right about that.

I do still believe that the electoral college protects minority opinions in the country and that it is necessary for our federation of states.

EU is a not a federation.

It allows rural states do have rights. No tyranny of the majority. The urbanites aren't allowed walk all over decent rural people.

You already have 1 person 1 vote. You're just a retard that doesn't know anything about how your own government is formed. Sad.
Worse than the idiots here that keep screaming about PR because it would have benefited their favourite "party" just this one time.

HNNG that peachfuzz

>You know how many people we have here illegally, who get protected and would be allowed to vote?

If they are illegals, how can they vote? Why don't you have ID cards issued only to US citizens? Why are you afraid of fucking ID cards?

>USA = EU
This is objectively false. EU is made of sovereign states. Also yes, you're damn right individuals in Europe should vote directly for the leadership, right now it's full of unelected cunts taking Europe on the road to disaster.

she drinks a big bottle of cum before she works out

>We're a hivemind
This was a very direct and condensed response to a concrete question. We do tend to have the same answers to a question, even in image form

Imagine if one day the convergence is so strong these event happen casually and we become literally a partial hivemind.
It would be weird.

Yet US states enjoy more freedom from the federal government than EU members enjoy from the EU institutions.

what's up with her shoulders? ... and hands?