What the fuck is the point of the Electoral College?

If more people actually voted hillary, shouldn't that make her the president?

Other urls found in this thread:

thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/the-electoral-college-still-makes-sense-because-were-not-a-democracy/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No. Google it.

>If more people actually voted hillary, shouldn't that make her the president?
no, both sides campaigned to win the electoral college and one side won decisively. if the election was structured as a popular vote, the entire campaign would have been executed far differently. popular vote is meaningless here.

It's so the big cities don't control who governs the whole country.

The cities are full of immigrants who shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.

Remove the immigrant vote, no need for the college.

thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/the-electoral-college-still-makes-sense-because-were-not-a-democracy/

Ask Al Gore

>the electoral college will be dismantled by next election
Calling it now

Still making these threads?

Must suck being en unemployed shill.

The electoral college ensures that the presidency takes into consideration all states and not just a few big ones

Eg. Democrats forgotten about Pennsylvania. They thought it was a blue state and did whatever they want (Clinton: "we're going to put the coal minors out of work"). Trump courted them and won their state.

The same thing could happen with any other traditionally blue/red state

A state's vote is a suggestion to the assigned electors of a state to vote for the candidate the state chose, but when they meet in December they can override the vote.
>Shillary bribes electors in Trump states to vote for her instead
>The system chooses her to be president like they were going to anyway
>Hillary becomes your president
This is why we need to change how the electoral college is done.

Our system is designed to avoid tyranny of the majority.

Easiest example.

I live in Rural Alaska.

My entire state has 1/10th the population of Manhattan

I don't wan't the kikes in Manhattan determining Federal policy for my entire state.

>The cities are full of immigrants who shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.

wat

Voter fraud
o
t
e
r

f
r
a
u
d

Trump carried 30 and a half states while Hillary only got 20 + DC.


How is it fair to give the presidency to Clinton? The rules have been set in place for over 200 years now. A career politician like Hillary should be aware of what matters.

The fact that she couldn't even maintain 3 states that voted BLUE for nearly 4-5 ELECTIONS show you how incompetent she is.

Kind of a combination of many of the things stated here. In addition to the whole population of state vs state intrest thing it would allow the president to mostly just pander to big cities and complately ignore the rural areas. It allows to balance state powers as well as urban/rural interests.

Read the constitution. It's all laid out in black and white. If you don't like the constitution then amend it.

Because its called the United States, the states represent the people. If we didn't have an electoral college, a few cities would control what everyone else has to do.

it's a shit system because ALL the votes of a state have to go to who the majority voted for. the US is a large country and much of it is rural, so rural votes in larger states will always prevail over whatever traces of intelligence exists in that state's urban centres.

it should be broken up by district, like in Canada. each district/county/(whatever state subdivision representing a number of people) votes for the party they want and the party with the most districts is elected. this would mean independent candidates could actually win some representation and eventually open up room for a third and fourth party.

that's how it works in pretty much every civilized country in the world.

It's ironic that the system that propped up her dying failing campaign is the very system that denied her.

This.

It's very easy to let illegals vote on the west coast.

Hillary's insane campaigning incompetence is what led to this. You can't change the rules after the fact just because you're upset with the result.

by whom?

That is how it works, but on a bigger scale...

That's retarded. States would have nothing to do with it. Every single person's vote would hold exactly the same weight, unlike with the electoral college where if you don't live in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, you might as well not vote. The only reason "large states" would hold more power is because more people live there, but that doesn't even matter because the state itself has nothing to do with it.

back to ribbit

>Democrats lose
>"WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH ELECTORAL COLLEGE DID THIS SLAVERS ARE TO BLAME WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH"

Make America great again, and keep it that way. Don't let the Libtards bring it down.

Take away California and Trump wins the popular vote by 2 million votes.

California is a blight upon this country and the electoral college limits the damage.

Sure, whatever you say leaf.

Under this system if you don't live in a metropolitan area nobody gives a shit about you.

>Trump will run again and win the popular vote that time and would have lost the electoral vote
Calling it now

>electoral vote made america great

Trump comes to make america great again via the same mecanism that allows america to be great

By taking away this system and swiching to a standard "popular vote" you are killing of the system that is "great USA"

Now some faggots are pushing agains the system of "great" to create a mediocre social USA.

Consider this

You've got 20 people , 4 people do the heavy lifting , they work the most , and also have the highest income.. They also pay the most , as much to take care of all 20 people.

The rest 16 people live on gibsmedat , they do liberal work , arts , youtube , entertaning... the 4 people enjoy the entertaiment of these people, but what happens when it's time to vote.

Those people those 16 since they have a majority they will be the ones who are making the rules , not those 4 who are actually the ones working.

And this is what is happening , less and less people are needed to maintain high production and less and less people want to have blue collar jobs.

And now here comes the social justice asking the minority , the actually ones who are keeping the society alive to bend to their will.

Majority rule is bad ... Mob mentality really ... true democracies only allowed certain people "the privilage to vote"

Under that system, your vote would count just as much as any other persons, unlike our current systems. There just happens to be more people where more people live, go figure.

This. People don't even bother voting in "safe R" and "safe D" areas because the popular vote doesn't matter. So we cannot say she would have won the popular vote if the rules were different.

I don't understand why the world is so perplexed about this. We never presented ourselves to the world as a democracy. We were always a republic. It's in our Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem, for fuck's sake.

You guys confused us for Ancient Greece somehow.

The whole point of the electoral college is to avoid a 'tyranny of the majority' - wherein a simple majority is enough for one group of people completely disconnected from another to impose their demands on them.

America is a widespread and socially diverse country - there are often more differences between people from different states than between the average American and someone from another country. Different states have vastly different economic needs, politics, and social needs.


The last thing for a country that spans almost an entire continent is to have all your political power being almost entirely in the hands of a handful of major, mostly coastal cities.

>States are given delegates proportionally
>small states are worth slightly more, 3 base vote
>Winner take all system

In order to win the EC, you have to win the greatest plurality of voters across the nation. There is no "big cities" argument going on here. It's so that the candidate who wins, won the most people in the most area. The fact that California can be 80% democrats and inflating her popular vote amount does not matter in the EC. The EC is more concerned that trump won more states (like Pennsyvalnia, Wisconsin, RH, and Michigan) with a slight edge which allowed him to take all those states.

Why are you still here? Wasn't CTR disbanded or are you just that much of a twisted idealist?

It's also very interesting how liberals will frantically try to question the rules they wouldn't question at all before the vote. See Brexit.

There are a lot more swing states than just FL, OH and PA. The system we have now is essentially the same as a popular vote system, except it's on a state-by-state basis instead of a national one, which makes sense considering we're technically a democratic republic.

to keep people like this fellow from having his vote matter

er. wait.. not THIS one. but um, you know, any of them that vote liberal.

you get what i mean.

>If more people actually voted hillary
Did they?
I thought the last few states that had yet to be counted were heavily Trump

Ignore this thread, a Canadian has been constantly shitposting about the Electoral College and claiming that Trump is an undemocratic dictator who will be killed.

The people. This is the first time in us history where the results generated actual riots

The Electoral college is there so you can't pile illegals into LA and win the election.

So? They'll die down and be forgotten.

Because LA and NY would get to decide every election and people living in rural areas would be forgotten about and shit on.

Which is exactly what caused Hillary to loose, favoring big cites at the expense of rural areas.

Personally id be in favor of making it so that the states electoral votes where divided up proportionally to how that state voted.
In this model in California of the 55 electoral votes 34 would go Clinton 18 to trump, 2 to Gary and 1 to Jill.

People are shitposting because California inflated Clintons popular vote number because a republican party doesn't exist there in a state level worth a damn. She already won Californias delegates (which is by and large, the EC is proportional), but she lost enough states by a slim enough margin the votes she had in solid blue states where republican voters dont vote since their vote wouldn't matter did not vote.

That would be fucking hilarious

no it isn't. if you recall precisely 8 years ago, people were shot, there were protests, there were riots.

but the media is controlled by liberals, so you won't find it reported by the mainstream media as much as they are covering these, because these conveniently fit their narrative

Didn't the South succeed because Lincoln was elected?
Or was that a few years afterwards?

in 1860 half the country revolted due to losing the presidential election.

They seceded before he took office.
The silly thing was, Lincoln was advocating a gag amendment to end the ability of congress to legislate slavery.

If you divide like that there wouldn't be a point to the electoral system
You are just converting milions into smaller values

Also you'll still have a problem of decimals , how do you round up? you've got 10.8/9.2/5.5
What do you do with the 10.8 and 9.2 .. will you give 0.2 to 10 to make it 11 , and then what do you do with 5.5

a straight popular vote would be fucking terrible

both parties benefit way too much from the electoral college anyway, its not going anywhere

The issue with that sort of arrangement is that voter fraud is more likely to occur. Right now voter fraud only matters in a few close states. So we can spend less resources to detect more important cases of voter fraud

There's also the paradigm that centers around what's your ideal government. Would you rather have the federal government to have more power, or would you rather have the states contain more power?

If you say the former, not having a electoral college seems more obvious. But if you want states to have more power, electoral college seems more useful

They are pulling a loop hole
They call it npv. Basically when enough states agree to equal to 270, it will be enacted. What it does the states that agree to this will give their electoral votes to whoever won the popular even if it conflicts with what the people of the state voted for. This will make cheating in elections that much easier. Instead trying to guess which states will swing and cheat in those, they can cheat everywhere and win.

>What the fuck is the point of the Electoral College?
To make sure the 6 most populous cities don't decide national elections by themselves.
>If more people actually voted hillary, shouldn't that make her the president?
Since our founding, the US has used an Electoral College for the electing the president and vice president; you're talking about a plebiscite, and that's never been in our constitution. The only way that could happen would be if the electoral college wound up as a stalemate.

12th amendment, look it up

This. They don't even have measures to prevent illegals from voting. Why should their state be able to dictate the whole country. fuck Cali.

How come you didn't care when it happened to bush? Oh right probably still in diapers.

The point of the electoral system would be to stop fly over states from being forgotten as Wyoming would still be worth 3. As for decimals simply start with who ever won and work down rounding up or down as necessary till you run out of votes.

Based black brother!!

>people's votes don't matter because of where they live

Is that seriously your argument?

No, that's democracy like athens where 51 percent of people can vote to have you raped and killed and it would happen legally. The USA is a constitutional republic that keeps even the majority from being a tyrant.

...

To make sure that Real Americans, as in, good conservative people who live outside of the Northeast and West Coast, have enough voting power to resist liberalism through the ballot.

If there was only a popular vote, candidates would never bother visiting something like 95% of the country, since most of the voting population is in the big cities. The electoral college makes it so each state gets its voice regardless of the number of people in it.
I do think that the big states like California and Texas need a bit of a nerf while the smaller states that are worth measly 3-4 votes should get a slight buff.

Hey dumb fuck, how many visits did the candidates make to your shitty state? Oh yeah, that's right, fucking zero.

No the electoral college is supposed to give each state a fair amount of the the vote based on size, population etc
it's not a perfect system but it's not the worst
also I think Trump was predicted to win the popular vote yesterday

Lmao leafs are still upset

>everyone living outside of a city doesn't matter

Is that seriously your argument?

>(((The people)))

Settle down george you lost

>Is that seriously your argument?
lol it was the Founders' argument, one part of it at least. There's more than one reason we have an electoral college. Its not arbitrary; there was a line of reasoning they had for choosing that format, and the consideration that cities tend to be population sinks, and urban folk and rural folk tend to have divergent interests, factored in. Jefferson was famously an advocate of the "Republic of yoeman farmers".

>1 post by this ID
>leaf
>concern trolling
CTR

maybe in the next patch they'll balance

Because America is a representative democracy, otherwise illegals in California would decide every presidency.

Okay, so let's ignore the stuffed ballots and suppressed voter effect and assume Hillary actually did win the popular vote.

Say you have 51% of people who live in the rust belt, east and west coast, and 49% of people who live in "flyover" states. The 51% of people can vote every time against the middle states and win every time. So you have 49% of people being tyrannized by the 51%, and have absolutely no say in politics. So your blue states could just vote in communism (like you know they want to do) and fuck over the entire union.

On the other hand, if every state has a certain number of electors, then every state must be considered, and candidates must actually travel across the states and have moderate views that appeal to a wide range of people. This helps make it so that the 49% can have their issues put forward 50% of the time, and the 51% have it put forward 50%. Which is far more balanced than the tyranny-by-majority approach.

And when it happens someone will sue and the states that did it will get butt fucked by the court system for entering into a treaty with another state without permission from the feds.

...

Take your middle school government class again. It appears you slept through it or was just getting into the Mary Jane then.

>If more people actually voted hillary, shouldn't that make her the president?
Without it, california, jew york and the big cities would decide everything, why the fuck would the rest of the country even bother to be united if they had nothing to say in the shaping of their own lands.

The electoral college makes it so that small states gain a modicum of power, without that system they would just tell california and NY to fuck off. Redirect the rivers back out of commiefornia and the entire state would just die. jew york would cease to exists as it's beating heart is the stock exchange, but it wouldn't be located there if they weren't part of the union.

If we do away with the EC we need to get rid of the House as well

>What the fuck is the point of the Electoral College?
Because we are suppose to be a union of 50 states
If anything should be changed each state should only get one vote

Holy fuck this again.
Sage

if elections were decided by the cucks who live in metro areas this country wouldnt exist

Disagree. Population should carry its own specific weight imo. I like it the way it is.

t. Kentucky

The EC is balanced proportionally. The only issue that arises with the candidate winning but not with the popular vote is when a candidate like Clinton, sweeps a big area with lots of votes but no opposition (California, NYC). She already got the votes of the state in the EC, but it also inflated her popular vote number since there was no opposition running against it. Compare it to a lot of the states where trump one, where he only did it with a 5% lead. Trump on average, had a bigger % of people in each state voting for him then Clinton. That is why he won.

We are a republic dumbass

>MAGA hat in the polling location

God damn it, I'm laughing, but campaign paraphernalia like that's not allowed in polling places. He should have been made to remove it.

THIS IS THE BEST FUCKING WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE TO A LEAF.

CANADA 2004 PIC RELATED.

Why the fuck does Iowa of all ducking places get to pick the two major party representatives

Nobody has voted for Hillary yet, leaf. Nor for Trump. That vote is held in December.

There seems to be a great deal of detemination to misunderstand the electoral college. It's very similar to the indirect and nondemocratic way that the prime minister is elected in a parliamentary system. The US was familiar with englands system, while we came up with a different system, the electoral college is one of the remaining echoes of that system.

This was a vote for representatives to a special-purpose parliament with two tasks: decide who will be president and vice president under the rules in our constitution, at which point the parliament disbands. Or if it can't decide then it disbands when the new congress is sworn in at which point *that* parliament then has responsibility for choosing the president.

If the majority of Canucks just shitpost, can't we get a range ban?

Yeah fuck the constitution and rules and shit.

So you are ok with one state having such a high population that a candidate wouldnt even have to bother with the other 49?

I'll never understand L.A.'s quest to live above it's water-sustainability means

Though I suppose it's a problem that'll affect more and more areas of the world due to refugees

^this

ANY state has the potential to be a swing state. Look at Wisconsin and Michigan, thought to be firmly Dem territory. Nope, they swung. Cali used to be a swing state, now it isn't.

You're a fucking idiot.

True that. Things would be much different in for instance California, who had only a ~30% voting turnout. Last thing we need is Commiefornia and New York to carry the majority of influence, so thank goodness the Founding Fathers had the right idea.

>Population should carry its own specific weight imo.
States not being equal is what killed federalism

t.commiefornian

>How is it fair to give the presidency to Clinton?

Because more people voted for her.