Who's right?

Is the electoral college used in the USA a good system?

youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

These video take very different positions, but which is right?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation
youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's an awful system.

But it does what it sets out to do, more or less.

The biggest problem is:
If you live in a blue state, and vote red, you aren't going to turn out to elections that could really use your vote on everything BUT the presidential election. Local elections matter, and their turnout suffers from voter disemphranchisement.

The electoral college was set up to insure that urban centers don't control the country. New York and California would be all they'd need to court in order to win an election in a popular vote system.

If we didn't have the EC the country would destroy itself because policies would only cater towards people who live in densely populated urban areas.

Cities would get all of the attention; the rest of the country would be completely ignored for decades. It's a huge recipe for disaster.

We need it to prevent mob rule

imo ... ofc not its fucking awful ..

Its as if the peoples votes are just an indication of how your MP (representative .. or whatever) should actually vote. But ultimatley its up to them, If they think "oh no thats not right I think we should actually vote for the other guy" .. then what was the point of the whole thing

Did you watch the videos?
One of them refutes exactly this point.

Care to explain how it's wrong?

This, idk why people don't get it.

see

I'm not watching, you can tell me.

>Listening to the majority of the country is bad
>Gerrymandering is good
Gotta love the retarded argumentation you guys use. You do realize that half the population doesnt vote because of this fucking retarded system? This is why Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas don't vote for federal elections.

People in cities do not grow food. They do not produce anything that people actually need. They do not produce anything that actually sustains the country. They live in the cities because it makes their lives more convenient since all of the things they need are so close to where they live, but ALL of the cities need support from the rest of the country to actually function.

I'd be okay with getting rid of the electoral system if we got rid of non-whites.

it states the populations of cities proper while neglecting to mention the metro area populations (thus greatly understating the proportion of the populace that lives in urban areas) and ignores the spillover influence gigantic cities have. the same principle is at play with the electoral college which is why LA, Chicago, and NYC cause their states some of the most lopsided democrat victories

it doesn't refute that point and the manner in which he committed that oversight really destroyed the rest of the video for me

susanna reids stinky pissflaps

I want to wank over Susanna Reid's face and cum into her eyes.

You comment is directly address by the video.
Please watch it to understand the argument and address that.

Your argument seem to be that city dwellers don't deserve votes.
Is that what you mean?

Because he's a moron. It does what's its supposed to do, its just most of the small states are fairly locked in who they're going to vote for and they aren't really worth courting all that much because its minimal gain for effort invested.

But in terms of political power they have more swing than they should, even if its mostly a death by a thousand cuts.

This is because the US is a Democratic Republic, not a straight democracy. It was designed this way because the land our founding fathers imagined is a series of UNITED STATES. States rights are and should be important, but we have spent most of the history of this country shitting the fuck all over them and diminishing them to the point that people think the Fed does or should do god damn everything.

Definitely, coastal california is essentially a different country and should probably calexit. Their politics is a liberal agenda echo chamber no matter who the candidates are. Trump lost by 2.5 million votes in the Bay Area and LA alone. All the libtards crying about Hillary winning the popular vote is a joke

i love how you euro retards are so convinced you know better yet consistently demonstrate you have no idea whatsoever what gerrymandering means (hint: it's not the EC)

the EC does allow us to listen to the majority of the country, the thing is... our country is a federal republic of states. individual peoples' voices are heard in their respective states and that's the way it always has been and will continue to be as long as we're the united STATES of america

>Browbeating you food productions centers endlessly because they are less population dense is a good thing
The system is built to avoid tyranny of the majority where city dwellers vote 100% to shit on rural areas and only their vote matters.

City dwellers do get votes under the EC. They are catered to to an already large degree even though the system is supposed to be more fair for the rest of the country.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of just how LARGE the U.S. is. A popular vote does not account for the incredibly diverse geography and natural resources present across such a large land mass. There needs to be equal representation for all kinds of areas to ensure each area is not neglected because as it turns out ALL of the areas are crucial for the well being of the country.

It is ridiculous to insist people who live in cities should be given total authority over the farmers who are essential to the country when they are 800 miles away; living in completely different conditions, dealing with completely different problems, and facing completely different challenges.

The popular vote system works fine when you can ride a fucking bike from one side of your country to another in a day. You fail to acknowledge the sheer logistics.

see , the video poorly addresses the legitimate counterarguments and ultimately reverts to an emotional appeal to muh fairness

USA is a Republic of States, that's why people compare it to Rome

For fuck sake it's never been a democracy

>It does what's its supposed to do
It's working well in California?

>where city dwellers vote 100% to shit on rural areas
Any evidence of this?

>You fail to acknowledge the sheer logistics.
You don't seem to have a problem counting the votes right now.
Why would adding up a national total be a logistical problem?

It's not a matter of math you imbecile; it's a matter of making sure the entire country receives equal representation. Just because an area is sparsely populated doesn't mean it's any less important to the well being of the country.

>It is ridiculous to insist people who live in cities should be given total authority over the farmers who are essential to the country when they are 800 miles away; living in completely different conditions, dealing with completely different problems, and facing completely different challenges.

How would this happen?

People always vote purely in their own interests, or what they perceive as their interests. Effete fucktards voted en masse because Trump said 'grab her by the pussy' years ago while the rust belt was getting absolutely raped for decades due to stagnating work conditions.

People were legitimately suffering, including in the north half of California, and all LA gives a shit about is what mean things have been said.

So guess what? They got blindsided and fucking destroyed because they are completely out of touch with most of the country.

Because you elect some asshole from the city who cares literally only about the city and courting city votes. The farms they need to even survive are nowhere on the radar, because why would they be? Nobody lives there.

>People were legitimately suffering, including in the north half of California, and all LA gives a shit about is what mean things have been said.

And this makes all of CA electoral votes going to Clinton good ?

Sure, because their population is retarded compared to the votes they get. You remove the EC and Califorina shits on its northern half twice as hard as it does now.

Did you watch the video where it explains that most of the US population live outside the major cities?

holy shit i just noticed you can't spell tyranny without tranny

>You remove the EC and Califorina shits on its northern half twice as hard as it does now.

Really? Wouldn't the votes be around 60/40?
That's about half as hard. Not twice as hard.

I did notice the part where he calculated the population of cities based solely on the city center proper and ignored the outlying urban areas still attached to the city, yes.

Let me paint you a quick picture.

Popular vote system is enabled and the EC is dissolved.
Candidates now fight for votes among the largest population centers because it's the most effective way to win the election.
They make promises to pass policies that favor the voters in those heavily populated areas.
In order to get another term or keep their party in office they enact those policies and resources are diverted to the cities to improve the lives or lifestyles of people living in the cities.
Nothing in the system prevents this from constantly occurring election after election, since the candidates will always focus their efforts on the most effective means to ascend the political ladder.
Candidates that attempt to do otherwise will inevitably lose because their efforts are spread too thin and the votes from the cities will ALWAYS outnumber those in rural areas.

After several cycles of this rural areas are falling apart because they are completely cut off from the resources from the rest of the country.
Farmers are left hung out to dry. They go out of business. Food stops flowing. Industry grinds to a halt. Bread lines start showing up. Bread runs out. America is suddenly and inexplicably a third world country because it's no longer able to support its own weight because people are invariably selfish and city dwelling people don't give a plagued rat's ass about people in the middle of the country until they're killing one another to eat a fucking rat.

It also doesn't mean that the vote of a person who lives threshold have more weight.

Nice worst case scenario.

I'm still wondering if you actually watched the video where it addresses precisely this point.

...

It's not worst case. It's not even a hypothetical situation. It's literally the great depression, you uneducated tea drinker.

>any evidence of this

NY. Manhattan fucks us constantly.

Yes, and electoral voters are supposed to represent their state. "Winner take all" states don't represent their voters.

That's actually how rome fell.

But I thought the left loved socialism.

Anyways regardless of whether it's good system, during an election or immediately following an election you didn't win is the wrong time to discuss it.

Why didn't the Democrats complain about the Electoral college when Obama won twice?

It is better than mob rule.

Just because there are more people who think a certain way in urban california doesnt mean they get to drown out people in a rural area.

no because it doesn't represent everyone.

t. califag

Wouldn't be fair if a handful of metropolitan areas could determine every presidential election. I used to not be sure what I thought but this election made me see it in a light of representing the whole nation rather then just the metropolitans

...

and california should be part of america again if a democrat is elected? get the fuck out of here

He also won the popular vote.

Exactly, it would end very badly.

Explain to me why Mob rule is better?

Why should the 51% lord over the 49%?

In the US we protect the minority, it is fundamental to our Republic. You wouldnt understand frog.

>during an election or immediately following an election you didn't win is the wrong time to discuss it.

For the record, CGPgrey made a similar video about the Electoral College 5 years ago before the 2012 election.

That being said, the Dems could have changed the system in the 8 years they had in power so i suppose they had it coming

And is they made better or worse by a winner takes all system?

>It's literally the great depression, you uneducated tea drinker.

Did they not have the electoral college system during this period?
I'm sorry that my lack of knowledge about historical US electoral systems angers you.

...

Its not just about the people, but about the people in a particular state.

The smaller weaker states are over represented to avoid the very real possibility of the larger states lording over the smaller ones.

the US is a republic which protects a majority rule and protects the minorty, i thought liberals are all for protecting the small and vulnerable

He says it's possible that with only 22% of popular votes, you could win the election.

I really don't see the problem there. The majority is stupid and will tyrannize the minority. The most important thing is being the best common grounded president as possible, which means winning different types of people, not quantity.

I am understanding more and more about why USA is so successful. Damn, your Founding Fathers were truly great people.

This.

>the very real possibility of the larger states lording over the smaller ones.

This assume a candidate that appeals to all the largest states.
How possible is this?

Did you watch the videos?

10m people in city.
5m in the rest of the region.

10m people decide everything.

People in that close of proximity are easy to control.

Ie urban centers all lean left.

see
The country needs to have representation in places that actually support the country's ability to survive; not just the areas that support the peoples' convenience. Without the former, there is NO quality of life for the latter.

Hierarchy of needs. You need to ensure the heart of a country is in good condition before you start worrying about the well being of the right hand. Sure, it's really nice to have a functional right hand, but if your heart isn't beating it doesn't fucking matter what state your hand is in.

No it wasn't and it doesn't even do that.

The electoral system is a failure of democracy and a child of compromise.

In a country like USA that every state is independent to make their own laws, electoral college is a good think. It brings balance between the cosmopolitan cities and the country side.

God i hate those cosmopolitan faggots, i hope they get nuked.

Very, concentrate all campagning in the largest states and population centers.

Why would you ever set foot in Nevada or Iowa when you could focus on new england and the west coast if all you needed was popular vote?

Sure. As you can see, the yellow dots are sanctuary liberal controlled areas, the areas surrounding these cities hold a lot of people, thus a lot more power in a popular vote only election.

The Electoral college makes it so a state such as Wyoming with 582,000 people has a say against a state with 38 million people such as California, which equates to over half of the popular vote hillary has currently. The entire middle of our country should not be ignored because of California and New York.

We also vote by county so that large cities do no overtake the entire state in the states say, which is why Florida is red.

>No it wasn't and it doesn't even do that.

Oh I get it. You think the system have somehow failed. You are completely wrong. The system is working perfectly fine. Your feelings are irrelevant.

>The electoral college was set up to insure that urban centers don't control the country. New York and California would be all they'd need to court in order to win an election in a popular vote system.
No it wasn't. It never was.
Don't be retarded.

good one senpai

I think all you spoiled liberal children need to sit down and read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers and temporarily suspend burning cars and bricking windows.

Stupid little shits.

Hey OP, here is a different perspective. I live in rural (XX)- you think I have any common ground, reciprocal opinions or respect for people in (XCity)?
I work in heavy industry, I wear jeans and boots and enjoy hunting.
The fuck would I ever allow those fucking losers to speak for me?

>For fuck sake it's never been a democracy
Which is why they never have elections.

Do you know why Rome is a republic? It's because they didn't have a monarchy. That's also why the USA is a republic. No King, no Queen.

A republic of states just means that the states are not owned by a monarch.

The USA has always been a democracy. If you get a vote that is meaningful that's democracy.

>Hey guys President Obama here, I've had 8 years to do what I said I would do, which is to

completely stop private interests controlling the election

get big money out of our government

campaign contribution reform

repealing the enhanced powers of the executive branch that were made during the bush/cheney era

BUUUUUUuuut.... instead of doing all that, I instead decided to take advantage of all those things to their fullest extent, even endorsing someone who was completely controlled and backed by big money!

Wooops, now an insane megalomaniac has all those powers I "forgot" to revert! Also the electoral college is now "bad" despite my victory's and the fact my endorsed candidate was banking on taking advantage of the same broken system!

>Nothing in the system prevents this from constantly occurring election after election

Other than the senate.

I would fuck Susana so fucking hard.

>trump won with only 7/8ths of republicans because the democrats rely on the 3/5ths

I think the idea is to total all the votes nationally.

Stopping at a regional level and allowing the urban to dominate the rural is a feature of the current system.

Did you watch the video where the fact that many states receive little attention under the current system is revealed?

Under the current system CA consistently goes blue. They award all of their share of the electoral college to one party.
Wouldn't changing this be a good thing?

Population of the U.S. = ~319 million.
Population of California = ~39 million.
Population of New York = ~20 million.

Two states = ~18.4% of all the votes in the country. If there are only two candidates to choose from, the rest of the votes in the country will be roughly split down the middle no matter what either candidate does, so whoever gets the most votes in the most heavily populated areas wins the election no matter what happens anywhere else in the rest of the country.

Which would render voting moot and there would be violent civil unrest by, you guessed it, people in the cities who refuse to allow their votes to be dismissed.

Faithless electors is retarded as fuck, but other than that it seems fine

One thing I want to say is that, we can get butthurt about popular votes but imagine a America where only one party ruled for 1992-2024+, that seems more unfair somehow than having someone win by electoral college once in awhile.

BWT This made me want to check out some old races and I must admit almost every time the electoral college and popular vote match up.

If you want to see a hilarious destruction look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936

The system doesn't achieve the things the peopel who support the system want it to achieve, therefore it fails.

It doesn't achieve democratic representation. It doesn't protect "flyover" states form being ignored. It make politicians focus on battleground states and ignore safe states.

no. national public vote, used to directly elect the president, just results in a warlord and his minions. democracy is stupid as fuck, and i'm tired of hearing republicans pay lip service to it.

Yes I know many states dont get much attention every election, 1988 Cali was red, not long ago texas was blue.

Its always changing, you essentially want to trade a slowly changing rotation of swing states for population centers.

The Electoral college is to protect us from mob rule.

Furthermore, at anytime the votes can be COMPLETELY overturned to allow any result. 100% of the nation could have voted for Trump and Hillary could have still become the legitimate president of the U.S. by faithless electors. That is a totally legitimate result i nthe current system. Do you want that?

With the very important exception that no state is always safe and voters can actively change the way an election is carried out by voicing their opinions. States are not ignored by candidates just because they're safe. Effort is still placed on those states because candidates understand that while they cannot focus on a state that is heavily in their favor, they also cannot ignore it unless they want to run the risk of transforming it into a swing state if their competitor is opportunistic.

>literally only hilary "supporters" are whining about the electoral college system and not a single person from either party.

Everybody is wanting true democracy without ever knowing what that means.

True Democracy is Mob rule.

If you ever got rid of the electoral system you will ensure state secessions and possible civil war (I'm not convinced any modern politician would have the cahones to authorize force to stop it).

It absolutley was you stupid faggot.

>That is a totally legitimate result i nthe current system. Do you want that?
Such a thing would not occur because everything is still subject to the will of the people. If the votes are dismissed without legitimate reason that the majority of the population agrees with, those people who made that decision would be forcibly removed from office for their incredible insult to the American people.

It's like you possess no sense for how things actually work; you're only butthurt over how things look on paper.

>just results in a warlord and his minion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

Not all the countries on this list are great, but I find it hard to believe that Norway or Switzerland fit that description.

>With the very important exception that no state is always safe... States are not ignored by candidates just because they're safe.
Wrong in practice. Campaigns very strategically ignore certain states and allocate time and resources to others, specifically because of the electoral college. Both Trump and Hillary did exactly this during their campaigns. Every presidential campaign has always done this.

True democracy can work but I'd say in a country at max city size. Switzerland is a direct democracy but I cant see that working in a larger country.

those people who made that decision would be forcibly removed from office for their incredible insult to the American people.
Which would be unconstitutional.

If your safeguard "This flawed process should remain constitutional because anytime it fucks up people would riot and ignore the constitution," then you have a flawed system.

>True Democracy is Mob rule.

And tyranny of the majority.

Modern education does not teach this. But philosophers have been railing against it for thousands of years.

Modern discourse is idiotic. "Let's burn stuff and break windows . . . y'all."

You're completely ignoring the point. If those states are ACTUALLY ignored, those states are lost. Those states become swing states. Those states are picked up by the competition. You're a fool if you think Hillary ignored New York and California for example. She focused her efforts on states where she needed to steal votes, obviously, but she did not ignore her constituency.

The people are always the vanguard for the constitution you dolt. Removing people from office when they violate the will of the people isn't unconstitutional you retard, IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT'S WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

Ah you got me, fucking cheeky.

>True democracy can work but I'd say in a country at max city size.


It wreaked havoc in ancient Athens. Which is partially how the Founders learned to detest it.

>Is the electoral college used in the USA a good system?

The answer to this question is really a matter of personal opinion.

The central issue is whether you think the President should represent the People or the States. The EC basically makes it so that he represents the states and it tries to ensure that smaller states are not completely outweighed by more populated ones. This also gives a bias away from urban centres and towards more rural areas. This could be considered more 'fair' if the goal of the President is to look after the interests of the states. After all, isn't the representation of the people what Congress is for?

If you think the President should act on behalf of the People then you would have to say that the EC is fundamentally unfair. Any system where the person with fewer votes can win should be considered not only unfair, but also undemocratic. The point of a national vote is to gauge public opinion and then elect a government based on this. By ignoring the majority of voters you are undermining the basic principle of democracy: "Rule of the People"

In my opinion, it is wrong to give any sort of weighting to votes as that compromises the idea of every individual getting a single vote. The vote of one person should not be worth more than the vote of another (As is the case with the EC, since voters in small states essentially have votes that are worth more). I think that all votes should be counted equally and the opinion of the majority should take precedence.

That being said, the biggest problem in the American system is the its 'First past the Post' nature.
It's crazy that someone can get 51% of the vote in a particular state but get 100% of the Electoral College votes.
(This also is what causes the two party system btw)

A much more worthwhile solution would be to change to something like Single Transferable Vote (what we use in Ireland)

video on STV: youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI