"Explain to me why the Electoral College is more fair than the popular vote."

"Explain to me why the Electoral College is more fair than the popular vote."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU
youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&t=10s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Trump won both

...

For the same reason blacks have the right to vote.

Fuck you
U
C
K

Y
O
U

OP was truly a faggot today. He won both bitch nigg3r.

Nigger

The winner of the world series is not determined by the team who scored the most runs throughout the series. The winner is the one who wins more games

Check one of the other 12 posts you faggots have made tonight and then got BTFO. Our founding fathers were pretty fucking smart it turns out.

...

better state representation. imagine how insignificant your vote would feel as someone from Wyoming weighted against all the votes from NY?
>tfw you have to tell a burger about electoral college

Its not. NY and CA account for 84 votes. According to google 15.79 million voted in those states. Of that only 10 million voted for Hill. 84/538 is 15.6% of the EC. Right now ~120 million people voted, so 8.3% of people counted for 15.6 percent of the EC. Fuck the EC.

So 10 million illegal immigrants in California can't overpower the other 49 states.

where can i see the current popular vote numbers?

This is simply. Because it includes a cross section of demographic being partially weighted - not strict "per person" democracy. Founding fathers were taking multiculturalism into affect.

The majority has more power than the minority, but some power is reserved for land mass / states (just like senate / house). It HELPS with the cultural divide.

It's not about "being fair" - it's about avoiding social collapse

So it's okay that people from California and NY and Texas have a vote with a lower individual vote-to-EV ratio than people from Hicksville, Flyover? It's okay that some peoples' votes are worth more than others?

Interesting idea of "democracy"...

This

youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU

/Thread

Because half the population resides in places like NY and California. If it was up to the popular vote, not everyone's voice would be heard, and it would not be such a great democratic system.

It was agreed on before the vote. Both sides had accepted it.

Not that I give a shit about fairness as long as the left looses an we get closer to actually gasing the 6gorillion

That makes more sense to me than my government class put it. Thank you.

Also, the leadership needs and wants of a farmer in South Dakota are far different from those of someone in New York City. All voices should be heard, and popular vote increases the possibility of collusion which snuffs out muh freedums

This you?

see

For the same reason it was fair when your faggot candidate won, nigger.

does that not imply that the democrats created the electoral college considering the south and slave owners was historically predominantly democrat?

Well that is partly true, it did have the 3/5ths compromise built into it.

Obama won popular and EC.

Devils advocate. They would say the dixiecrats weren't real dems.

It's basically like 50 elections and each state is weighted by population. If it didn't exist the most densely populated areas would have the only votes that matter.

When the constitution was signed we did not have any political parities (that did not last long though)

Yes but didn't the 14th amendment revise the three fifths compromise was the argument it wasn't seeing.

Because the delusion of Californians shouldn't determine the fate of the country more than it already does.

I thought the fucking leftist claim to be the educated ones. US education has to be really trash if you have to explain electoral college to college cunts.

That's a shit argument for two reasons.

One, muh farms. muh filthy bankers and money off money I hate marxism though lol. It's not your place to decide that someone gets more voting power in the federal government because YOU like them better.

Second, the EC system STILL produces the same effect you are talking about. Except instead of only focusing on a few of the biggest states, they just focus on a few of the swing states, including states that are fucking unproductive wastelands like Michigan. Popular vote means that a candidate has incentive to get votes ANYWHERE, equally. An extra few thousand votes from Wyoming is every bit as good and useful as a couple extra thousand from California.

Regardless of which is better, the popular vote doesn't count this time, because no one was voting based on popular vote.

For example, lots of republicans would not have voted in NY or California because they knew it wasn't going red.

Neither are good unless you implement some kind of basic test before voter registration, to keep morons from voting.

Where not a democracy dipshit, where republic. And we are the United STATES of America, not the United People

it's a republic
>tfw you have to tell a burger that

when people from California and NY know nothing of the problems of the people in the "fly over state" and can decide how they will live their lives you can see how helpless they'd feel in an popular vote
maybe people should stop living in densely populated cities if they want to change the world, maybe they might learn somethings

Basicly its soddom and gommorah , everyone lives in those places and with the popular vote the whole united states can burn with them , because soddom and gommorah rule the united states

To be fair Op, this does not represent the whole argument, it boils down to this, when electing the president should the states be represented or the people?

This doesn't make any sense
The state of Flyover has fewer EV than CA or NY

The scope of the government should allow the citizens of CA or NY to decide the laws of their land.

But if 100% of a flyover state's population decided a candidate was in it's best interest, it would never have the same influence as California even if California had a split vote 51/49

>things should be fair

Go back to your safe space, cunt.

Let's say we go to popular vote...

Then don't you think politicians would gravitate towards population centers and pour all of their money into those?

A president could win an election by simply going to New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco and Dallas... and garner enough votes from those areas to achieve a majority.

You have to fucking REALIZE THIS:

Our founding fathers NEVER MEANT THIS FUCKING COUNTRY TO BE A PURE DEMOCRACY, YOU FUCKING MONGOLOID!!!

...Because a pure democracy makes it possible for a plurality to oppress a minority...

That is why our forefathers wrote the electoral college into the constitution...

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY TO CHANGE!

FUCK OFF

The UNITED STATES of america is a union of separate political entities and its electoral system, cancerous duopoly notwithstanding, is designed to defend the rights of less populous states being crushed by the whims of the populations of more populous states. Its the same basic principal as your constitutional rights, which aim to defend the rights of all form the potential tyranny of a majority that could democratically oppress and remove those rights by virtue of numbers.

Electoral college reform was floated in 2000 after Gore's loss, but immediately relegated to the back-burner for 15+ years.

It might not be "fair" per se, but apparently it's also less important to people than literally hundreds of other trivial issues which came up during the campaign.

If Democrats wished to take advantage of their numbers, they should have been pushing this when they had power. But that's impossible now due to the GOP holding both houses of congress plus a huge majority in the state legislatures.

But, no, we got gender-neutral bathrooms instead. Dems have nobody to blame this on except themselves.

We didn't campaign and vote for a popular vote total. Also, some states have 3 months of early voting, others have only one day of voting. Why should each vote be counted equally?

Also, president of the United States. Not president of the people of the United States. In our federalist system. The states are allocated some political weight, and the +2 electoral votes for each states reflects that.

Because, my brainwashed sheep friend, had your candidate won in the same way you'd be praising the system and telling us all to suck a dick "you mad drumpftards???" etc...
So please, acknowledge the obvious, stop acting like whiney 5 years old and move on

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that, when the electoral college was made, it was made to favor slaves states because even if the entire population could not vote, they were still represented.

I always see people saying this but I can never see it. Speaking as somebody from the always forgotten area of California, I'm glad the electoral college is in place(Though it definitely does need some changing to, y'know, stop electorates from being able to decide the president without anybody else's say), but that doesn't change that I can't see anywhere that says Trump is in the lead in popular vote. If he did win though, that's both hilarious and beautiful.

nop

see

This. They teach this shit in middle school.

>...Because a pure democracy makes it possible for a plurality to oppress a minority.

>whining about a minority being "oppressed"
>voting for Trump

HOOOOOO BOY

Sup Forums ONCE AGAIN STRIVING TO REACH NEW LEVELS OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS

...

Wow, such a conflation of historical bullshit. The 3/5 compromise was made so southern states could enjoy increased political power without freeing the slaves. Typical libtard, so certain about something that is incorrect.

>when people from California
hey, we're victims of this too. Some group of SJWs in San Francisco decide the fate of the rest of us, most recently this "calexit" BULLSHIT.

>define "fair"
fucking children

How is skewing elections through arbitrary swing states any better?

>forgotten area of California

Califag here, you are beyond retarded if you think this.

I hope our state sinks into the ocean to get rid of retards like you.

Redpill me on North Dakota. Why are they so smart up there?

So the argument was basically "you should feel bad because it was a product of slavery even though it's still a relevant system of voting we still use today."
So it's
>muh feelings

"retard retard blib blub fag retard blah"

wew

Literally to counter voter fraud bullshit and to contain the cancer. Turnout could be 120% in california, but that does not matter, as the EC vote is set. A red state could have a 5% turnout and their EC vote is set. It has nothing to do with turnout.

Furthermore, illegals are counted in the census and blue states have been defrauding that as well to gain EC votes. We deport them and in 2020 blue states stand to lose upwards of 12 or more seats in congress. Red states will lose as well, but generally they are blue seats anyways.

This is why Trump did not run in 2012. Trump running in 2012 would not ensure that his impact was felt in the 2020 census. By winning in 2016 however, the deportations and the stacked deck we now have in our hands means that we can conduct sweeping changes quickly and without meaningful opposition.

The changes will be fast enough to benefit normal people and it will forever crush the "progressive" argument.

The only way a popular vote will stand is if they dissolve the borders and governments of each state and hand all power over to the federal government. You want that?

>muh racial oppression
>muh ethnic victimhood.
>orange man is hitler

You JUST LOST the argument, nigger

redpill me on Germany. Why are they so autistic there?

>even southern nigger arent as retarded as Californians

In a popular vote, 51 percent of the country can vote to enslave the other 49 percent.

The electors are representatives that we have already voted into office to represent our vote for president.

If you didn't want those electors, maybe you should pay more attention to your local ballots.

Not at all. I have not argued anything, simple pointed out that the image in your post had truth to it. Nowadays the electoral college still has this with vote turnout /felons. It means no matter the amount of people that chose to vote or the amount of eligible voters in that state the state still revives all the votes according to its population. Isn't that great?

It's because out of all the 50 states, EACH state is important to the US as a whole. Wheat farmers, fisherman, laborers and industries specific to the landscape and resources of each state play a critical part in our nations resources. It is for this reason that their interests must be given fair representation not only for their constituency but for the contribution their land represents to the nation. This is crucial to a nation that is A.) As big as the US... and B.) With number of states within the US. Without EC, the candidates would only need to pander to the largest cities in order to be elected.

The people are voting for their respective electors who hold the values of the state's residents. This is why the president rules over the United states and not everyone's personal beliefs. It works better on this larger scale.

Some of your citizens (in the more populous states that consider themselves the measure of "american") do indeed.

Decades of hunting down the extraverted types so that only the vocal cucks and the introverted thinkers remain.

Trump won both. Hillary cheated on at least 20 percent of the vote. Trump needed a landslide to overcome that and he got it. It's not fair to country folk for brainwashed city slickers to control outcomes--hence the sensibility of the electoral vote.

Mississippi and Louisiana would like to have a word.

Spam gets saged.

In the electoral college 23% can enslave the nation.
I'm glad you agree that Dems in CA and NY should get more representation.

Women couldn't vote. Neither could non-landowners. They were represented 100%.

Also, the 3/5 compromise wasn't limited to the electoral college, but was most directly related to congressional representation. Does that mean that congressional representation needs to be eliminated?

You're right. It's not his place.

It's the Founding Fathers' place, fucko.

Yeah, now that you mention it I guess adding "muh" before every argument your opponent makes means you refuted them.

You're a pretty smart guy, you should run for office like your Dear Leader :)

If dems truly want everyone to be treated equally and fair, eliminate the progressive tax. Poor people aren't paying their fair share, and rich people are paying more in both rate and volume! Every citizen should have the same voice in voting and the same contribution to the national budget!!!!11!!

OP here. I fully support the EC. I was arguing with a few people on a predominantly black forum who adamantly believe "more votes should win, period", and I had to come here to clear my head. As well as steal a few arguments, but I pretty much already said what's been said here.
The thing that really gets me though is that it's not as if any other aspect of the election was "close enough" to start bitching about the popular vote.

Because if the popular vote was the only thing that mattered then the rallies would only be in New York, California and Florida. Our politicians would only take care of those states. With the Electoral College it gives politicians more of an opportunity to connect with the state's issues and be able to campaign and let them know what will be helpful for their citizens.

If Clinton had won, you wouldn't be asking that question.

your two reasons are shit arguments
>It's not your place to decide
into the trash that goes lol
>Popular vote means that a candidate has incentive to get votes ANYWHERE
hmmm.....
so?

the only good point you made is the fact that the electoral college inflates the worth of swing states. except "swing states" and "red states" and "blue states" aren't something fixed forever. demographics change, voting patterns change. what was once a blue state can become a red state and vice versa. so changing the laws forever because of "swing states" would be foolish.

Oh no I was saying this persons argument basically boiled down to saying that the system was wrong because it was born from slavery. Even though the 14th amendment, apparently save from felons, reformed the three fifths compromise. Not saying that was your argument my bad for the confusion.

Exactly. Why can't people fucking get this?

Population distribution
Half of the US population lives in these counties

The nature of a two housed congress is one important factor that makes the government of the United States so unique. Because of the structure of the senate and house of reps,
each state and the U.S population as a whole are both given equal representation respectively. Every public school system should teach you this early on.
This alone should be evidence that popular vote already exists within the electoral college via the house of representatives, but people, especially those on the left,
are forgetting how the election works.

Damn, the faggots clash in the night

I live in Jefferson County Alabama. I'm pissed that it's blue, fucking thanks Birmingham.

It's a republic and a federation. What incentive do the little states have to help the big states if the big states decide everything for the little states? The founding fathers created the constitution with the ideas of incentive, and their knowledge of human political nature. Guess what they saw? Nobles and kings over and over getting turned on by the rural poor because they were sick of being told how to live.So they figured the best way to combat the inherent power of strength in number was to give the little guy a bigger sword.

Here ya go OP. We are a Democratic REPUBLIC comprised of 50 INDIVIDUAL STATES not a true DEMOCRACY.

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&t=10s

Subtract California's vote totals from Trump and Clinton. Now tell me who is in the lead? Why should 49 states be held hostage by one? Oh right, they shouldn't.

Now just imagine if candidates only had to worry about the needs of these areas to win. It's simple, stop being retarded people.

It's not my job to educate you :^)

We are a union of many states, with varied and diverse interests.

The popular vote is extremely simple and cannot account for all of those interests.

Direct democracy can work on the level of a single city, but if you get any larger you fall into representative democracy.

The electoral college is fairly well thought out, and any upgrades to the system should be equally well thought out.

Let's think about it and revisit the issue in 8 years. Democrats will win in 2020 anyways, too late to rig the supreme court.

Explain to me why people who pay no taxes should be allowed to vote?

Hi there, it seem to me that you have a problem with our constitution that our founding fathers wrote and the roughly 1.2 million people who died protecting it..

It is not 'fair'

now explain to me, NIGGER, why I or any man should care about fairness.

Nature is not fair. Fairness has allowed the cancer that is niggerdom to grow in my country and if I had my way you'd be shipped back to the hell hole your kind crawled out of. Fuck your fairness.