Electoral College

Why is this still relevant in burgerfat politics?

Explain this to a fellow shitposter.

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/spoiler-that-plan-to-have-the-electoral-college-elect-hillary-clinton-isnt-going-to-work/
youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_wins_the_popular_vote__not_.html
en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/10
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The states in essence vote for the president.
We are a republic.
Nationwide popular vote is a meaningless stat.
The end.

Look at your average nu-male in California. Is his vote really equal to that of a hard working veteran and rancher in Montana?

I think not.

the FF were smarter and loyal to their country more than any who preceded them.

Manifest destiny when?

Because USA is a confederation of the states
the states Choose united leader

also this way, it is guaranteed, that minor states won't be ignored

The individuals vote really only matters on a state level in a presidential election.

The real question is why doesn't the rest of the world allow their states a voice?

So Trump wins and the universe is saved.

Well, you see, blah blah blah democracy.

So a bunch of faceless men, whom the public knows nothing about, can just override what the population wants?

this, people just don't get that the individual states are really voting for president. Our federal government is so big and powerful that people forget that our country is made of individual states.

How many fucking times are we going to have to explain this?

>So a bunch of faceless men, whom the public knows nothing about, can just override what the population wants?
Who are you referring to specifically?

So out of state college students, urban blacks and whatever the fuck comprives NOVA (gated suburban enclaves, urban blacks) don't decide the fate of the rest of the state.

Because people in Wisconsin and Iowa are not served by the interests of New York and California. If politicians only catered to huge population centers then vast areas of the country would be neglected. Presidents should be appealing to a diverse coalition of voters rather than just the most easily targetable group.

Because we started out as an alliance of states and only later became a country.

The countries of Europe were already unified under central governments before becoming democratic.

Otherwise candidates would only campaign in urban areas. The parties that represent suburban or rural interests would have a much harder time campaigning.

I am sure it is an honest coincidence that since lefties have gained exclusive control of education here that basic information like the us is a republic and how elections work is being omitted in school.

The so-called electors. Most people don't know who they are.

In our system you can either vote for the senate or the political party itself. The public has more direct control.

...

It's a system of balance and checks between an ignorant population and a stupid democratic parliamentary system.

Name a time when the electors thwarted a president elect and successfully prevented their inauguration.

>In our system you can either vote for the senate or the political party itself.

Citizens in America vote for their Representatives and their state officials depending on the respective states' constitutions.

Thanks to the fucktwats who passes 17A we vote for Senators too.

It's not that big of a deal.

Can you vote for your queen?

UGGGGGHHHHHH Well since you asked...

It protects small states from all the metropolitan areas, which almost invariably vote Democrat, it was never about popular vote, people getting butthurt about it is unfounded. Each state is represented proportional to their representatives, and representatives are proportional to the population. This means small state will get represented, but not overepresented and vice versa, each state defaults at 3 electoral votes.

The only argument against this electoral process is not the placeholder votes of the states, but the college itself, as in December, the "real" election occurs, it has never happened where the elected wasn't also the winner of the electoral "vote" back on November 8, but the fact that there's a possibility threatens democracy and our Republic.

>3 major cities should have more weight than 3 entire states

>Name a time when the electors thwarted a president elect and successfully prevented their inauguration.

Will happen this year, if tripz wills it.

Hasn't ever happened, people would freak and and get their guns ready.

this.

It can be broken down into "win the vote in enough states that gets you 270 electoral votes. This means you need big states but also middle america's vote"

Fuck the queen.

Isn't the population density of urban vs rural 50-50?

And that is when Electoral College gets ditched.

Are you guys realizing that your arguments for the Electorial College could just as easily be used to justify the European Union?

It would fracture the country literally.
Also:
washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/spoiler-that-plan-to-have-the-electoral-college-elect-hillary-clinton-isnt-going-to-work/

Gee whiz, that does not actually answer the question.
Can you vote for the queen?

The only arguments I've seen for the Electoral College since the election are

>Clinton knew how the system works, why didn't she (and her supporters complain in the first place) which isn't an argument

and

>big cities have more people in them and they don't vote how I want them to vote, therefore people in Montana's vote should be worth literally 3x as much as someone's in New York or California

What's your point? How is the fucking queen relevant?

It exists because we are a republic.
Apparently that concept is too new and different for people to wrap their heads around.
Look at the land area that Clinton did not win just by state, not even by county.

Alternatively

Maybe you should try reading the thread, or literally any of the other carbon copy threads popping up

Fag

Why do you have proportional electors though?
Was that some compromise between the federalists and the other guys back in the day?

Why won't you answer the question?

So candidates actually pay attention to more than just cucked urban centers

checked

these digits shall not go unchecked my good man.

czech'd

Of course not. Again, what's your point? Monarchy has nothing to do with this discussion.

>Why do you have proportional electors though?
It is the same proportions as representation in legislature iirc.

Nice digits.

focking chooooooooooockod

btfo no hostages

I'm getting to it.
What role does the monarchy play in British government?
What power do royals actually have?

>australia

i dunno why i waste my time but here you go faggot.

youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

I
I chex your hex

>I'm getting to it.
Ah man, I'm just waiting for you to drop that bombshell you have hidden up your sleeve. Just fucking get on with it.

> What role does the monarchy play in British government?
> What power do royals actually have?

They are expensive mascots. They are practically irrelevant to the democratic process.

You do understand that the states make a lot of their own rules right? The whole us making decisions for the states is the opposite of how we function

its revelvant because cities that have a majority of niggers and spics always vote democrat, thus forcing the other half of the country to get pissed off and start genocide.

electoral college prevents that

Yes. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the EU. Except that politicians fucked it all up.

That happens every time a president wins the popular vote but loses the election - or in the csse of Bush jr. he lost the popular vote but won the election.

It's obviously not what the people want.

If the American Federal government started fucking up in the same way the EU has, states would start seceding in clusters.

>muh veterans

Noone should be proud of fighting for corporations and Israel. You'rr almost the definition of cuck if you are.

Veterans are just dumb asses like anyone else. Few winners, whole lot of losers.

>Get rid of the electoral vote
>Niggers and illegals in Cali NYC and Philadelphia pick the leader of the entire country

I legitimately don-t see what the problem is. It's still half the population so....it's not like their vote counts twice - it's still fair. You just have to get off your ass to vote.

If anything that's more of an incentive to be politically involved.

thanks for not even attempting to explain why the Electoral College is preferable to Popular Vote.

Anyone with a brain can see what you really mean though

>if you live in NYC, LA, Miami or Philly you're more likely to be brown, therefore your vote shouldn't count or count less than a white person living in Cheyenne or whatever the fuck city exists in North Dakota

>I know nothing about the military except what Sup Forums tells me

The gray zones make up 50% of the population. The other 50% is urban. So you have equal representation from both sides, which renders the Electoral College redundant.

Except for the rural states like Maine who go blue. If it was popular vote then the Dems would win nearly every time.

Oh so the most decorated soldier in History, Smedlry Butler, telling us the military is literally a racket for Corporations and Israel, I'm just supposed to ignore him and chant "support r troopz"?

>if you live in NYC, LA, Miami or Philly you're more likely to be brown, therefore your vote shouldn't count or count less than a white person living in Cheyenne or whatever the fuck city exists in North Dakota

But it is worth more you fucking retard. States like New York and California are worth way more electoral votes than most because they are home to the cities that stack niggers up like sardines and farm them for dem votes every year. Thats why literally no one was ever concerned NY or California was going to go red. Its literally impossible.

Without the electoral college there would be no reason for a presidential candidate to campaign anywhere other than LA,, NYC, Chicago, etc. No other area would matter since the majority of the votes are always going to be in these liberal big shithole cities.

Issues of the small states are more important than the issues of the large states. If we let the small states rot and perish, the large states would collapse as well.

This is why small states get more power.

The Electoral College prevents tyranny by heavily populated states, such as California.

praise kek!

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

>Soldier
Firstly, a soldier is someone in the Army, Butler was a Marine. Secondly, he was an officer. Any idiot can tell you that the job of an officer and the job of an enlisted man is vastly different. Thirdly, Butler never said jack shit about Israel, it's just a Sup Forums meme.

Are these accurate as far as districts won?

It was intentionally designed this way - to prevent majorities in high-population states from constantly stomping over smaller-population states. It's not an accident that electoral votes from high-pop states are given to low-pop ones.

>no other area would matter
>no plots of land would have their political voice heard

Why does Wyoming get 1 Electoral College vote per 200,000 people living in it, but California gets 1 vote per 700,000?

What is different between the plot of land known as Wyoming, and the plot of land known as California?

No.

Fucking quads of truth. Holy shit checked

It's actually very easy:

HRC won the popular vote by 1/3rd of 1 percent, or 0.33%.

Now remove all of California's votes for either candidate.

DJ Trump won the popular vote by 7 percent.

It is one of many checks and balances to prevent any one state from dominating the union.

Think of it akin to not letting only the most populated country make all decisions in the United Nations.

>Now remove all of California's votes for either candidate.

What the fuck? Why would you do that? So that Trump conveniently wins?

Great comment!

Another thing to consider is that not all votes are necessarily counted. Absentee votes are generally counted last. Absentee votes also tend to be more conservative than votes cast on election day.

When absentee votes could not possibly affect the outcome of the election, in some states they are not counted.

Not counting absentee votes skews the election results toward liberal candidates.

While Hillary may have one the votes counted, she probably did not win the votes actually cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1000 votes counted and there are 1300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in CA alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33-.667 mil Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from CA’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote “victory.” (That was the headline on the NY Times and it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)

americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_wins_the_popular_vote__not_.html

Because California is filled with Libshits,They pointlessly voted Hillary because "muh feminism"

No, because it gives you an example of how the Electoral College is working exactly and expressly for what it was designed for.

I'm a democrat, no need for Trump to "conveniently" win because he already did...

So... exactly what I thought. Californian voters should be disenfranchised because they disagree with you politically. Thanks. I'm beginning to have a lot more insight into the Electoral College vs. Popular Vote argument, which I had no stake in / didn't care about until this election cycle interested me.

What manga is this

So the whole election isn't focused on a couple of cities

kys faggot

i get the feeling some voted for her just in an attempt to reach a "milestone" like xbox dweebs collecting achievement points

Trump wouldn't have won if the voter of someone living in Wyoming or Montana or Idaho counted the same as someone living in New York or Los Angeles. So far as I can tell, I've yet to have someone provide a cohesive argument to the otherwise.

>Our federal government is so big and powerful that people forget that our country is made of individual states.
this is the cause of a whole lot of the problems.

to illustrate that California leans very strongly in one direction, and commands enough voting influence to sway the results DRAMATICALLY.

The electoral system is designed to curb that so smaller states with potentially very different interests are not strictly silenced.

Think of it better with regard to the state internally. 55 electoral votes. ALL blue. While Californian's votes were proportionally less influential than Connecticut's voters, there are red voters within California that are utterly squashed.55 votes. They didn't get 1.

Now it might be easy to say that california as well as any other blue state effectively had their vote squelched as well, but hence the house of reps. Hence the senate. There may still be a red bias, but there is representation for their "team".

The executive however is a singular position, with good reason. It must be decisive. It must execute on federal obligations. It doesn't have the luxury to sit around and wait on consensus. At least not always.

The "problem" with the system isn't the electoral college. The "problem" is that the position necessitates a single political power holding authority, where that authority has been given far too much power. There is too much invested, so people can't just "let it go" to trust in the executive to do the right thing in the case of war. Nope. Federal Gov is basically the largest employer, so too many people have too much riding on the position. Literally anything would piss literally anyone off if "their guy" didn't win.

It's an extremely small margin (0.33%), which as stated excludes the Military absentee ballots (which are hugely Republican), but you're probably incorrect either way. If the system was designed as a straight popular vote, he would have changed up his monetary/advertisement and campaigning strategy and gathered more voters from other places. He's a big-city New Yorker, but he intentionally gave up that state to take advantage of the current systems rules.

You can't realistically use these results to apply to a hypothetical game with a different win condition.

I'm not a Sup Forums regular, just here for the election, are you by chance a troll?

fucking checked

our founding fathers are the best!

There's no way to feasibility know that.

With the way electoral colleges work, people in states that almost always go one color don't show up to vote if it isn't for the color they want.

Example, some Californians who would want to vote Trump don't bother voting since that state always locks in blue. With a system without the electoral college that would change the results entirely, but lead to the problem of candidates only dating big cities.

MAnGA

>What is different between the plot of land known as Wyoming, and the plot of land known as California?
One is full of people and the other is full of subhuman commie scum who should not be allowed to vote.

Read en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(Dawson)/10

I think the electoral college is fine but it needs to be altered.

State representation should be proportional to the amount of votes received for either candidate and all electors should be legally bound and forced to vote according to the people they represent. I know most electors are "pledged" but there is still wiggle room for personal opinions that needs to be eliminated.

...

...