Hello...

Hello. For all of you arguing with the electoral college works this guys explains very well the problems with the Electoral College. Watch it, you might learn something.

youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk
fireandreamitchell.com/2016/11/11/here-is-why-hillary-clinton-didnt-win-total-votes-cast/
youtube.com/watch?v=Zd5rul6EdF0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

nobody cares cunt, trump will be your president, deal with it.

(((problems))) with the Electoral College.

the problem with the electoral college is that the democrat leaning states have too many votes

>The problem is that the party is don't like gets more of a say!!!!

Boo fucking hoo retard. Guess what, the party you had are the ones doing the most good in the world. DEAL WITH IT.

It's going to be a rude awakening for you when Chelsea Clinton wins in 2020.

just dropping in to echo these sentiments

faggy video

This thread yet again...

Whoa dude sick filename bruv.

>Chelsea fucking Clinton
Are you even trying?

...

>loses game
>"Ok guys time to change the rules"
Where is his video on voter id laws?

You aren't fucking getting it. We've been wanting to change the fucking rules, because they don't work or make sense. POPULAR VOTE IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

HILLARY WOULD HAVE WON HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Next time you should lube up better so you don't get so butthurt

>hillary runs a horrible campaign
>hillary never bothers to go to wisconsin
>welp its time to get rid of the EC boyz

popular vote is still being counted.
Last I heard CNN even projected Trump as winner

neither candidate was seeking the popular vote in this election

But Gore won the popular vote in 2000, just like Hillary won it now. It was the electoral win for the GOP that stopped both of them from being elected. If we had simply the popular vote, then Bush wouldn't have happened in 2000 and Trump now.

>people think the EC is bad
>people think popular vote is good

I was curious and did some shitty math.
What if we split EC votes based on % of vote earned in each state?

>State - EC Votes - R%/D% (rounded) - EC Votes * % (rounded)
Alabama - 9 - 63/35 - 6/3
Alaska - 3 - 53/38 - 2/1
Arizona - 11 - 50/45 - 6/5
Arkansas - 6 - 60/34 - 4/2
California - 55 - 33/62 - 18/34
Colorado - 9 - 44/47 - 4/4
Connecticut - 7 - 42/54 - 3/4
Delaware - 3 - 42/53 - 1/2
D.C - 3 - 4/93 - 0/3
Florida - 29 - 49/48 - 14/14
Georgia - 16 - 51/46 - 8/7
Hawaii - 4 - 30/62 - 1/2
Idaho - 4 - 59/28 - 2/1
Illinois - 20 - 39/55 - 8/11
Indiana - 11 - 57/38 - 6/4
Iowa - 6 - 52/42 - 3/3
Kansas - 6 - 57/36 - 3/2
Kentucky - 8 - 63/33 - 5/3
Louisiana - 8 - 58/38 - 5/3
Maine - 4 - 45/48 - 2/2
Maryland - 10 - 35/61 - 4/6
Massachusetts - 11 - 34/61 - 4/7
Michigan - 16 - 48/47 - 8/8
Minnesota - 10 - 45/47 - 5/5
Mississippi - 6 - 58/40 - 3/2
Missouri - 10 - 57/38 - 6/4
Montana - 3 - 57/36 - 2/1
Nebraska - 5 - 60/34 - 3/2
Nevada - 6 - 46/48 - 3/3
New Hampshire - 4 - 47/48 - 2/2
New Jersey - 14 - 42/55 - 6/8
New Mexico - 5 - 40/48 - 2/2
New York - 29 - 38/59 - 11/17
North Carolina - 15 - 51/47 - 8/7
North Dakota - 2 - 64/28 - 2/1
Ohio - 18 - 52/44 - 9/8
Oklahoma - 7 - 65/29 - 5/2
Oregon - 7 - 41/52 - 3/4
Pennsylvania - 20 - 49/48 - 10/10
Rhode Island - 4 - 40/55 - 2/2
South Carolina - 9 - 55/41 - 5/4
South Dakota - 3 - 62/32 - 2/1
Tennessee - 11 - 61/35 - 7/4
Texas - 38 - 53/43 - 20/16
Utah - 6 - 47/28 - 3/2
Vermont - 3 - 33/61 - 1/2
Virginia - 13 - 45/50 - 6/7
Washington - 12 - 38/55 - 5/7
West Virginia - 5 - 69/27 - 3/1
Wisconsin - 10 - 48/47 - 5/5
Wyoming - 3 - 70/23 - 2/1

Total
Trump - 253
Clinton - 259

I find it fascinating how close things would really be in this case, and how neither actually would hit even 260 due to not having enough to earn all the EC votes in some states.

>Wow, what if we go back to olden times when a fucking human beings worth was 3/5 of a white mans

That's essentially what you're saying. Fuck you, racist asshole.

>massive voter disenfranchisement
>dropping voter turn out to 50%
>80% of ballots cast mean dicksquat
>third parties suppressed
>perpetuates the Dem-Rep competition
The only people who think that current system are good are A C C E L E R A T I O N I S T S and literal retards.

Have a think about what means.
If the rules of the game change, people will play a different game. Crazy right?

This is the 800,000th CGPgrey thread in the past two days.
Why should I care about a stick figure redditor with glasses and le coffee XD any more than I would care for the arguments of another total dickhead like John "Whites being allowed to live is Eurocentric" Green and the rest of the trendy Youtube armchair scientists.

>inb4 not an argument
Hillary won by less than 1% of the popular vote. It's not as if the Electoral college stole away the will of an overwhelming majority. Shitlibs packing their states with "vibrant voters" have been utterly BTFO by the electoral system, which is a good thing.

Nigga what?

How is that what I'm saying?
In this case, everyone's vote gets to be heard.
Those 3 million in California don't just become nothing, they would equate to 18 electoral votes for Trump.

Because he presents good and valid arguments that you cannot even address, let alone refute.

None of this matters, you simpering fuckwit.

The victory conditions inform the strategy. If the popular vote mattered, then both candidates would have optimized for it instead of the EC and Trump still would have won.

>leaf

>Fuck you, racist asshole.
Dude do you know where you are?

>POPULAR VOTE IS ALL THAT MATTERS
Not for the last two hundred and twenty seven years
Did YAAASSS QUEEN not know that going in?

youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk

Cool get rid of it for the next election
Trump won faggot

sure. The united states is built upon a federalist system. We are a union of states, the Electoral college guarantees that no matter how large a state becomes in terms of population it's voice in choosing the president will be limited by it's amount of representatives. All states are given at least 3, 2 from senators as all states have, and at least 1 from a representative.
This allows for states with low populations to still have a voice in the presidency, to make their voices heard, and to keep any single high population state from near singlehandedly deciding the president. We don't have a direct democracy because that is not how our elections were set up. This is fundamental to our nation, we are not a direct democracy, we make decisions based on a representative body and the voice your state has in an election is determined by your representative body. And to an extent the amount of electors your state has is based on population (again, to an extent). Your vote is not useless, you still make a difference by going to the polls and picking your candidate of choice, there's just a hard cap on how much your state can influence the presidential election.

I'm not asking CGPgrey to refute this, I didn't watch his video, I'm not going to give that literal walking meme another click, another view.

meant to say I am not trying to refute CGPmeme not the other way around.

>valid arguments
His 'one person in every state except California'-scenario is as contrived as it is unconstitutional given separation of power and the need for elected officials.

Also notice how neither party objected to EC before the election. They like playing the game, they just don't like losing.

corr: elected -> appointed

>thread filling up with retards who didn't watch the video

He clearly says the problem with the electoral college is that the electors can take the vote away from citizens if they deem the president elect unfit for presidency.

So if anything his video is either neutral or even pro-Trump

OK the EC exists for 2 reasons. First it was designed without a popular vote in mind. The founding fathers did not trust the population with a direct vote. After all, when information traveled slower people were more likely to vote for a candidate from their home state. This is why we cannot according to our constitution we cannot have a President and a Vice President from the same state. Secondly it allowed large states to count to their fullest even if not everyone voted. If cali only had 10 people vote, those ten people would still assign 55 votes. This was a bigger deal when the 3/5ths compromise was a thing.

just neutral, he is explaining some problems with a vid form 2011.

Came here to post this. The Electoral College doesn't exist to be democratic. It exists because low population states would've never agreed to the Constitution otherwise.

Look at OPs comments in this thread and tell me if they are about freedom of vote casting in EC or about the partitioning of number of votes...

What if you distributed electoral votes based on %?

So all the Republicans in CA would still vote and get ~20 electoral votes instead of staying at home because there's no way they'd win in a winner-takes-all.

>massive voter disenfranchisement
You don't know what the word means
If you want voters to be enfranchised, support Voter ID legislation so Democrats can't bus around darkies and illegals to rack up thousands of fraudulent votes in every city in the country.

>dropping voter turnout to 50%
There have only been three elections in American history where turnout was lower than 50% of eligible voters.
Between 1840 and 1900, we regularly hit turnout numbers approaching 80%.
Lower turnout (50-60%) didn't become the norm until women and minorities were given the right to vote.
The Electoral College system has been unchanged for two hundred years. There's no correlation between it and turnout.

>80% of ballots cast mean dicksquat
Bullshit.
In a popular vote system, states like California and Texas would have millions of excess votes that would effectively cancel out several states worth of voters, like Wyoming and Vermont.
The EC ensures the election is a state-by-state contest.
"Solid" blue or red states can be flipped. Minnesota is the most reliably Democrat state in the Union; Trump would have won it this year without McMullin splitting the vote.

>third parties suppressed
We have had several viable third party candidates in our history. If Bernie Sanders had lent himself to the Green Party this year instead of being a cuck he could have easily flipped several states.

>perpetuates the Dem-Rep competition
That's the media and the extant political machines.

>low population states
You mean slave states.

Not fair because then the Republicans (evil) would win.

I think it's kind of shit that repubs in Illinois, California, etc. kind of get their votes nullified when it comes to the electorate. Would it be possible to split cities with major populations and their relative electoral votes from the rest of the states' respective votes? Or is that just a retarded idea?

"Slave states" like Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware, right?

publicly funded political parties and primaries and winner take all are not inherent to the electoral college. I am one to blame the feds for just about everything but when it comes to elections its the states' fault for sure.

The problem with his videos is they beg the question.

1)He starts the video explaining why we have the system in the first place.

2)The proportional electoral system is OK, but it misses the point. Election is separate state elections. This the winner take all.

3)Completely misrepresents the electors. The election in the state is to chose which PARTY's electors get to vote. This means that in Ohio, Republican, not Democrat, electors get to vote. Unless they are planning a coup, they will vote Trump. The same would be true in New York where the Democrats won. The example he gives is overly specific because you'd be hard pressed to find one where the electors actually went against the winner of the entire thing (i.e. that the electors gave the presidency to someone who didn't win the majority of electors). It can also only happen in 24 states, which is why it will never happen. Example, say some of the Republican electors want to vote for, say, Paul Ryan. They can, but doing so means they won't give the President to their guy but the Democrats. Its also a great way to end your party, so it doesn't happen. Basically, his complaint exist in fantasy land.

States can decide to do that and a few do not assign all of them as one group. States have full authority on how they chose their electors.

Don't be a faggot, the absentee ballots were not counted because trump WON:
fireandreamitchell.com/2016/11/11/here-is-why-hillary-clinton-didnt-win-total-votes-cast/

A majority of states, both Dem and Rep-leaning, legally bind their Electors to vote with the state.
The only substantial talk of faithless electors this election is coming out of Washington state where they put some Bernouts in the College who don't want to cast a vote for Killary.

An online petition "signed" by two million people isn't going to sway the results of an election with a hundred and twenty million votes.

it's not retarded. its what happened in Maine. The liberal yuppie coastal towns voted for Shillary, the people in the north voted trump and yet they both got votes out of it.

NoVA bro reporting in. It really felt good to nullify all those southern Virginian votes. Fuck, I'm still excited about it.

Wouldn't have happened if the NoVA statehood movement had taken off, y'know?

It's the states' prerogative to do that.
Maine and Nebraska are the only ones who do.

Dis breddy guddd..... :DDDDD

Didn't know about the voter % after women and minorities, but it makes sense...

>thanks for it.

He believes in the rational voter meme.

How bluepilled can you get.

>giving people the ability to do stupid shit
>hoping that they won't do it because it's not "in their best interests"
The human element is will always be the weakest. And if someone, like say, Soros, were to threaten/bribe/corrupt an elector, what would happen?

>a fucking leaf
When the Constitution was written, the South dominated national politics and Virginia was the most populous state in the Union.

So should the proper way to address it be to petition the state to change?

It just seems like you could split the major cities into their own "district" like how DC works, with its equivalent of electoral votes, while the rest of the state that may otherwise be silenced has an opportunity to influence the electorate based on however they collectively vote. If anything it should increase turnout and give better representation so the people will be more satisfied with the result. It also means you couldn't just focus on the major cities or top 10 states and auto win.

Obviously this would pretty much only wind up helping Republicans but it's really not my fault that all major cities seem to default to liberal shithole. It's an odd (((coincidence))) to say the least.

An interesting modern effect of the College is that since rural votes have slightly more weights than urban votes, it actually encourages people to STOP CROWDING THE FUCKING ALREADY CROWDED CITIES and disperse more evenly across the land, thereby not putting additional strain on urban infrastructure.

Save our infrastructure! Keep the Electoral College!


...also, because Trump.

trusting some jew youtuber to teach me something? yea right ill stick with people i trust like sean hannity and alex jones

Here's a (you)

Seriously though, this has been done death, the college protects voters of each sovereign state from being overridden from another state that does not represent them in districts, you guessed it, representatives. California and New York would rule all of America's future in that case. Two states deciding everything for 50 is not a functioning Republic.

>problems

What, that it isn't compatible with your shit "democracy"?

That's the point. It prevents large numbers of extremely stupid people from making extremely stupid decisions. The problem with EC is idiots like you attacking it thinking it must be what it isn't.

That really stimulated my prostate

Go go bed CTR.

Say it with me: MR PRESIDENT Trump.

It just sounds like a better way to compromise on the whole thing and improve the system.

Yeah sure but imagine how much bigger the Trump sweep would be if the turnout in NY, CA, IL, etc. wasn't nulled. There seem to be very few red states that would give dems points with this system.

youtube.com/watch?v=Zd5rul6EdF0

>majority of states, both Dem and Rep-leaning, legally bind their Electors to vote with the state.
You do realize that they can still go faithless, they just face legal consequences for doing so, right?

They could do that, but they wont because it would reduce the total states power.The majority would effectively be giving up votes. I agree it would be more fair and i wish the states would adopt something like that, but it is not a stable system.

YAAAAAAAAASSSSSSQ UEEEEEEEEEEEEN YAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

FUCK DONALD TRUMP TRUMP YASSSSSSSSSSS

SHE WON SHE FUCKING WON YAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>WE'VE TRIED REEEEEE

200+ years...nope.

Recently:

Bush 2000. Nothing changed.

2005 motion for amendment. Nothing changed.

2009 motion for amendment. Shelved by Democrat-controlled Congress.

Not much talk about it, and no conventions since, IIRC, and no notable referenda.

---
No, you haven't been fucking trying. All of a sudden, TRUMP wins, and your apathy has paid off big.

>Better not be the reddit f--

It's the reddit fag video, kys OP

>Adam Ruins Everything
Could you be any more of a cuck

>Nothing changed.
Hmmmmmmmm remember the economy hitting the fucking shitter and Obama saving fucking EVERYONE

Remember how Obama bailed out the auto industry and thus SAVING A MILLION FUCKING JOBs

No I bet you conveniently forgot that little fact

>cites their sources
>show dedicated to redpilling normies
Do you always look a gift horse in the mouth?

Conveniently you remember the fact that YOU STILL DIDN'T TRY.

Bush crashed the economy, thanks to the Electoral College, and YOU KNEW IT.

And you DIDN'T.

EVEN.

TRY.

No referenda, no conventions, no nothing.

GTFO, if democracy wanted popular vote, democracy would have changed it. Go ACTUALLY petition for a convention for this amendment and help politics for a change instead of doing jack shit.

Like you conveniently forgot to stay on topic.

Fuck off asshole. I couldn't vote because I had to pic up my wife's son at school. I assure you if I wasn't busy raising him I would change the electoral college

Would it really reduce the total state's power that much? Sure you'd lose some in some states but you would gain a net positive in states you'd otherwise get nothing from. If you're only splitting the largest cities, say 1 mil+ pop within x mileage, then you'd probably only lose half your electoral votes but it pretty much only applies to states with 20+ votes as is.

What the man fails to address is the fact that the electoral college works the way it does now because people vote for Presidents instead of electors as was intended and what actually happened until Jackson. Basically, the electoral college is fucked up because the people, who were not supposed to fuck with the EC anyways, fucked it up.

>cites their (((sources)))
>redpilling normies
"dude how is Drumpf going to build a wall through a mountain lmao"
"dude how is the wall going to stop planes lmao"
"dude wetbacks are just going to sail around it lmao what the fuck is the Coast Guard"
"how is building wall going to stop people from overstaying their visas we all know the wall is Trump's only policy proposal and he's not expanding immigration controls in any other way"

Repealing Glass-Steagle is what caused the housing market collapse, repealed by Clinton. Not even the effective parts saved.

Why do you do this?

>problems
Almost every democracy has a similar weighting system in place so that urban areas don't overrun rural areas entirely. If everyone lived in MegaCity-1, there wouldn't be a need for that shit.

I do it for the (You)'s baby.

Remember how almost one hundred million working-age Americans are still unemployed
Remember how most of the "job growth" in this "recovery" is people picking up a second part-time job instead of a well-paying career

That was the Supreme Court. Jeb illegally disenfranchised black voters. The third party contractor that actually did that, ChoicePoint, confessed to everything because they reached the conclusion that they were about to be thrown under the bus.

>being butthurt about the Wall episode
Grow up

>who cares if they present overly simplified "refutations" of a strawman, they're totally a reliable source and not just "edutainment" for smug libtards and "centrists"
Can you not be a leaf for one second

Remember how under the Obama administration we are at our lowest rate of unemployment since the FUCKING 80's. Awww but your beloved George Bush solved all the problems huh?

Well, there's all the purple states. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, all the urban voters in Austin and Dallas and so on ... really, there's quite a few democratic strongholds on otherwise-red states. Atlanta, Phoenix, St Louis, New Orleans, I have to be forgetting others. I haven't crunched the numbers but I don't think the gains would be particularly one-sided.

Really, I just want NoVA to split off and become its own state so we can develop our own independent identity. At this point we're more Yankee than southern. So I'm antagonizing southern Virginians over us turning the state blue. I truly have no opinion on the Electoral College one way or the other; I see both the pros and cons.

I'm for the electoral collage because Crush the Urbanite.

They want to destroy me, everything I believe in, and my way of life.
If Clinton won the EC and lost the popular vote they would be justifying it as an important check in our electoral process that just save America from literally Hitler.

They want war, and the EC is a weapon to use against them.

The problem lies in the fact that, according to our current laws, each individual state decides how to chose their electors. Their is no overarching law for the entire nation for this (well there is requirements to be an elector, you have to be a citizen). So lets say Cali decides to split their vote, but Texas does not, suddenly Texas has more power.In order to make this happen, you would have to have a constitutional amendment which would infringe on states rights.

I like the electoral college because it means that MOST people in MOST districts elect the president. The president is ensured to be elected by a broad cultural base.

The pop vote disparity has only grown and is now much worse than in 2000. There is no way trump can catch up, unfortunately.

>Trump says he wants to abolish the electoral college
>"wow you fucking idiot its there to protect the people, the system isn't rigged, you're just going to lose and you're going to be sore when you wasted all your time and money"
>Trump wins
>"WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS RIGGED SYSTEM
Seriously?

You make the United States a democracy (p.s. it's not, it's a republic) and you will only make it easier for a crazy ass (like Trump) to get in the presidential chair.

Stay on topic, guys. This is about Electoral College. I was just humoring him with the Bush example.

>Had to pick up son from school
All right, I guess some states require excuses for mail-in ballots, and don't allow early voting. Scheduling is hard sometimes. I can understand that.

However:

>Implying he didn't vote for an Electoral College change
>When nobody even put it to a referenda

This means the Electoral College was still a thing, not because you didn't vote, but because NOBODY FUCKING CARED, when they had ample reason to...several times.

Yet, now Trump gets in office, and the cuckery loses its mind. This man is so great, he's already inspiring good changes in law...After having done NOTHING in an in official capacity.

Hail the duly-elected God-Emperor-President.

It does not ensure that, you can win the electoral college with less then 30% of the popular vote