The electoral college is bullshit

I'm not here to complain about Trump winning, because I actually wanted him to win.

But despite the fact that he won, no one can deny the fact that the electoral college is complete bullshit.

The main argument you guys have is that the electoral college is supposed to protect small states from the tyranny of big ones.
This may seem like a fine argument, but it is making the assumption that the electoral college protects the small states, which it doesn't.

Want a completely plausible winning scenario?
>Cali
>Florida
>New York
>New Jersey
>Philadelphia
>Michigan
>Illinois
>Texas
>Georgia
>North Carolina
>Ohio

Were any smaller states protected in this scenario? FUCK no.
You can't fucking say that it does protect them when the above scenrio becomes more likely the more time passes.

checked
we're also constitutionally supposed to use the electoral college so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Your meme argument here is assuming any candidate can appeal to all of those states
Of course if ALL the big states band together they'll outweigh the small states, what the fuck do you expect?
The EC just gives small states a bigger say than they would have otherwise

Look out upon the world and view that the electoral collage is the result of founding fathers invoking memetic magic and Kek through their print media.
Kek was here before we were born
Kek will be here long after we are gone
Praise Kek

>Philadelphia

Not a state faggot

>assuming any candidate can appeal to all of those states
It's not as hard as you think. It is already the winning strategy to try and secure 8 of these states. And yet somehow you don't think wining them all is possible?
You saw Texas almost turning blue this election.

Like jesus think a little.

lmao

An easy to follow explanation.

>Pic related.

>gets trips

>wants direct democracy

>supported trump

Something doesn't make sense here. Could it be possible that op claims to support Trump to make Sup Forums let it's guard down? When in fact he is just a salty shill?

>calling based Pennsylvania which made the finishing blow to Shillary Philadelphia
kek

We are not a democracy. A democracy gives power to a side until that side becomes too powerful and destroys the other. America's electoral college is specifically so that both sides can have their way.

>direct democracy
Uh no fag I never said I wanted direct democracy and you should just kill yourself for even suggesting it

I am just saying the EC is bullshit. read the post carefully

lmao xD

>new york, georgia, california and north carolina go the same way
lol

Because most of the population LIVES there
Why do you think those states have so many electors?

I agree it should be one state one vote

huehuehue

Reread the post kiddo, I never said we should have a direct democracy

explain right now why this isn't plausible? The denser a state gets, the more democratic its votes and these states are COSNTANLY getting denser.

You missed the point.

>Sup Forums thinks electing representatives by popular vote is "direct democracy"

this for truth

okay, for argument sake, if you don't like the EC and you don't want direct democracy, what do you want?

Or you burgers can start moving to rural areas and develop them, rather than zerging california and new york

What would be the incentive for "fly over" states to even STAY in the Union, if they were regularly fucked over in the way proposed? The USA is an immense country with very uneven population distribution, meaning that vast areas with very specific interests arising from their ecology and economy would otherwise be dictated to by people who knew nothing of their needs and cared even less. Great recipe for discontent and even secession.

ITT: Everyone completely ignoring the point OP is trying to make

Yeah, let's replace our farms with suburbs. What could go wrong?

Why can't you just be happy we live in a era in which kek is the most powerful it's ever been since the founding fathers btfo'ing the british?

They should have waited until 1777.

I wholly agree BUT in order for America to move to a popular vote system, we have to have uniform voter ID laws across all 50 states.

Do NOT give up on the representative system, is the best on the world, if you give it up, you'll end up like latin america were the intelligent voters are outnumbered by dumb fucks every election.

Fucks that don't what they're voting for.

*know

Idk lol


Because the situation given is pretty fucking plausible, and becomes more likely as time passes.

yer mum

And what percent of the population is in those states captain shekels.

Think about it this way, if majority would be all that mattered the only people you would have to pander to as a politician would be homogenized urbanites spread across a very small number of large cities, the vote of the rest of America just wouldn't matter.

Assuming you believe that states have some sort of historic and cultural value as independent beings with voices of their own it's entirely logical to allow them to decide for themselves.

I think it makes sense, the US is a vast country with varying wealth and opportunity depending on which state you live in. It doesn't make sense for Californians to decide the federal policy

That shade of pink makes me irrationally angry.

>56.11% of the US population
>50.18% of electoral votes

tell me again how it benefits large states? retard

It's why I agreed with a post user made, maxing the electorates at 50. The remaining electorates should be distributed evenly among the lower populated states.

That way every states gets a fair representation.

>Idk lol

Nice try asshole, but Philadelphia isn't a State.

I live in CA. Popular vote would mean that illegal immigrants would decide everything for America, because like hell would the people here stop them from voting. Anyone who didn't 'look like' they would vote for the 'right person' would be in danger.

We're only safe because people assume CA will go blue anyway. It would become a massacre here otherwise. There's no way I want to get rid of the EC, we would definitely never have a fair vote again then.

you can amend the constitution, and the founding fathers made multiple mechanisms to do so because they knew government would have to evolve as problems arise.

If we did a popular vote, you'd only need to campaign in those same states. Probably even less.

You are attacking it for not being perfect, but it only has to be somewhat positive to be justified.

lmao xDDD

>Hey guys if a bunch of big states beat the small ones then they win....

no shit.

Have you been to Kansas? It's a shit hole. A very, very flat, boring shit hole.

>illegal voting is a serious problem
this meme needs to die

I believe in one state, one vote. The only other plausible and fair system is direct election, but that is shady in my eyes.

While that may be so
Leftists, faggots, and anti-americans would shit brix and rip out their own hair if we went back to the system we used to hsve

user u r so smrt

Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania sort of, and NY are not battleground/swing states

Fuck you.

People seem to forget the United States is still a federated coalition of states and not one single country with provinces. The electoral college is a reflection of that.

hey faggot respond to my point

those states represent 56% of the US population. Why shouldn't they win against the smaller states?

Nigger thinks philly is a fucking state. This is hate board for the disenfranchised whale hunters of malaysia. Get your bitch ass back to tumblr. You find no confirmation bias here trans gender kin.

The EC benefits liberals a lot actually look at how NE being lots of tiny states helps dems in the senate.. Stop whining

>one state one vote
>or the complete opposite
electoral college is in between the two options you want you dumb fuck.

Abolishing or softening the electoral college in the US will essentially negate the incentive of a federation. You can't have taxation without representation outside if feudalism, and there would be no reason for a state will little to no say staying in a union. It will naturally and rightly fall apart.

Shits not difficult to understand cunts

My argument isn't that it protects us, it's that popular vote doesn't work for America. We're not just a country, we're a constitutional republic. Think of every state as it's own country. You win by winning the majority of states, not the majority of people, which a dense majority of our liberal voters are all packed into megacities, giving way to inflated "popular" vote numbers. Then, there's voter fraud, which also inflates the numbers.

user they SHOULD win
The point here is the small states are meaningless if a candidate wins these states.
Meaning the you can't fucking say the EC 'protects small states' because it fucking doesn't.

lmao xd

It is a serious problem and it is not a meme
Personally I suggest that you have to have a voter IS in order to vote and anyone who commits voter fraud in any form is banned from voting for 24 years(that's 3 presidential elections at least fuckboy) and that includes people who knowingly let voter fraud happen like say shawtiqua brings her "neighbors" ballots to the voting place for them and the people working there let them cast the ballots
Also you should be banned for life from voting if you use someone else's identity to vote
Friend of mine literally went to vote on November 8th and they said he couldn't have a ballot because he'd already voted

Saved for a later post.

3/4 of states in favor? Not bloody likely, bernout

Just want to say for people complaining about the popular vote. 163 million people live in the 10 most populous states. America's estimated population is at roughly 319 million. Do you really want 10 states being able to decide president ignoring the other 40 states? If you think think that is crazy, now you understand why we need the electoral college.

Provide us with a better system to protect us against the tyranny of the majority.

not an arhument

Popular vote was never how we decided elections because we aren't god damn democracy we are a Republic with neo-democratic devices(though technically that only applies to the presidency since people vote for him instead of elected officials yet everything else works exactly like a Republic)

Original system before we switched ;)
But OP is CTR or a commie shitposter from int/plebbit so he would blow his own brains out if we went back

>Texas voting with NY and Cali
Top lel.

Buts its not a majority of states user to win. Its a majority of electoral votes.

WEW LAD
E
W

L
A
D

Good point, I should have said "wouldn't," not "doesn't."

We are discontent. Hence the current President Elect even though he was thoroughly demonized by all major media platforms.

>American Patriotism
>Money
>Civil War

These are the reasons the flyover states stay. The brand of Patriotism that keeps them loyal to the rest of the US has been fading away under 8 years of Obama and the mountains of disdain the blue elites have for them. That might make a comeback or it might morph into some new form of patriotism that excludes the blues as true American.

A lot of these states have poor economies. They really been fucked over in recent times and would probably be hesitant to try and stand on their own. Some states would make it just fine. Montana has an excellent economy. Same goes for North Dakota.

Many think any real attempt at secession will lead to another civil war. I have no idea if the Federal Government would allow it. They probably would if it were in the state constitution. I know Texas would legally be able to, but I don't know about the rest of the states.

That's the whole fucking point.

It's not in their favor it just keeps it balanced. They can still lose, that's democracy.

>HEY GUYS EC SUCKS
>ANYONE CAN WIN THESE ELEVEN STATES
>RIGHT GUYS?

Don't shame yourself OP

>But OP is CTR or a commie shitposter
Except I voted Trump and clearly said I wanted Trump to win.
But at the same time I'm not a fucking retard and I can recognize the problems present with the system.

ok so replace it with the popular vote? so instead of those states, we replace them with los angeles, san fransisco, chicago, new york city, and maybe a few cities in the south?

how is that any better? how is that any different now? you're simply replacing one monopoly for another. a few select states to a few select cities.

oh, wait, let me guess, its because it could have allowed YOUR CANDIDATE you preferred to win this time around.

if hillary won the way trump won this election there wouldn't be a single protest, a single riot, or a single OUTRAGE over it from the left. they would be laughing at republicans telling them to fuck off, its the constitution, blah blah blah.

no what, fuck off.

True, but when we win more states, we secure more electoral votes (in most cases.)

It's not about states, it's about urban centers. Same issue with the Northv/South following the civil war.

Also, winning/losing the popular vote is meaningless since we're talking fractions of a percent of the electorate, which is statistically irrelevant. Now, if anyone wins/loses by 2-3% or more, maybe we'll talk.

The democrats are actually 1 state legislature away from controlling less than 25% of state legislatures.

And midterms in 2018 are slated to be a complete blowout.

Except it would be republicans passing amendments and not dems, so I highly doubt they would remove the system that gave them one of the greatest wins in history.

Whoops.
Removal of birther citizenship when?

> Texas almost turning blue

It was the state that had the widest difference towards Trump. The farthest thing from blue.

No body has presented a single fucking argument for why winning these 11 states isn't plausible.

wew

>Democrats already instantly win cali, ny, nj
>Dense states more likely to vote democrat
>States always getting denser
>Eventually these states will be more and more consistently democrat
>"keeps it balanced"

WEW

Honestly it should just be based on who gets the most states, not on the popular vote and the electoral college since they're both bullshit

>you saw texas almost turning blue
what the fuck are you talking about

>Thinks changing the system and making amendments to the Constitution is okay
>Isn't a commie
Leave

You've got cali and texas in the same basket and are arguing it's plausible? North and South Korea will sooner start hugging and making out with Park and Kim just fondling eachother having sloppy sex in the DMZ before what you just said.

...

Nevertheless user I see your point. However abolishing the Electoral College and going to Popular vote only makes matters worse. If it became only about popular vote cities would always win, especially as they grow bigger.

So unless theres another solution. The electoral college is still better for this situation.

Also theres a reason why its called the United States of America. When we vote each state is deciding individually who they want to represent them.

thanks for saving the thumbnail you retard, I cant see what it fucking says

not an argument faggot wow you sure showed him

>which it doesn't
Except, it just did. The popular vote was higher for Clinton because states she already won electoral votes for had a high population and popular vote in those states piled up and became pretty useless.

>steps game they might lose
>told the rules before hand
>plays game
>loses
THAT'S NOT FAIR

>Philadelphia is a state.

>I'm not here to complain about Trump winning, because I actually wanted him to win.
>I actually wanted him to win.
Bullshit faggot, stop telling lies.
The electoral college is good, fuck off shill.

That's a strawman. It's supposed to keep large cities from dominating politics. Nothing wrong with larger states having more voting power.

People were meming Blue Texas because of MSM propaganda saying "TRUMP CANT WIN HE'LL EVEN LOSE TEXAS" and because when they first started counting they started with the counties which have the spics turning it blue, so for a brief time it did indeed show up as blue.

If we delegated electorates based on population California would have 68 electoral votes

fuck that

people need to stop complaining over this -- in order to get rid of it we would need 3/4 of the states to approve of it and that's never going to happen.

Lmao. Oh boy, you're why old people bitch about millenials. First to cry and last to think of a solution.

Successful troll is successful

NJ has nearly half the population of NY and the electoral votes reflect that. MI has a little more than a 1/3 of CA's population and the electoral votes reflect that. It is like that throughout the country. That's how it's suppose to work. The electoral college reflects the distribution of the country's population.

Now if the Democrats get their way in planting refugees in low electoral states AND can indoctrinate those refugees into voting blue or left, you may see more electoral votes in those states. There is reason Clinton wanted to flood the Mid-west with refugees. And there is a reason CA allows illegals vote. Maybe then you'll be saying how great the electoral system is.

The modern electoral system also prevents gerrymandering taking effect on a national level. Democrats have nearly every major city voting for them. And that is precisely because of gerrymandering. But it isn't enough to win a national election. The electoral system makes sure of that. It protects small cities from larger cities by mapping the electoral to districts. Even if all the major cities join in a combine, like they almost do every national election, the electoral system puts a stop to thier tyranny.

Los Angeles does not represent the entire country, nor does Casper, WI. But Los Angeles may represent CA better then say Culver City. And like wise with Casper as it relates to WI. The electoral system is a check and balance system. That's why it works the way it does.

the EC is adjusted by population

so i dont see anything wrong with it

it gives smaller states more "voting power" than bigger ones, it doesnt make small states into literal dictators

though if i had my way, votes would go by district instead of state

Are you blind? It's written in english.