When pressed...

When pressed, I don't know of a single argument FOR the Electoral College that doesn't end with an admission that some voices should be more powerful than others. The EC values equality of the constituency at the expense of equality of the individual.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0

Thank you, now fuck off.

Someone post the reality check about Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and some other state being equal to New York

Hard working family people should have more say then people who pursue useless degrees in small liberal states. Just sayin

UNDER BUDGET

The electoral college only makes sense if you remember that we are a nation of states. We were originally independent of each other, largely sovereign. We have our own values and our own cultures. We realized that, by coming together, we could accomplish a shit ton more than anybody else in history. But there's no incentive for a smaller, less populated state to join with a more populous state if the more populous state is just going to impose its will. The electoral college is what makes use the *United States* of America, instead of just America.

You're right. Obama shouldn't have been president, by that logic.

Pretty sure it exists as a vocal majority of the states themselves, not people overall.

There are states like california or others that obviously have millions more people but if they had the entire fucking sway because they always vote blue it'd be shit.

Same for the larger red states.

And I'm also pretty sure it exists by county by state because then the majority politicians on lower government county/state levels can get in and set majority appealing laws/regulations etc.

If nearly the entire map is red, no matter how population density is, why the fuck should it ever go blue?

The argument is that if you want to directly elect someone you actually get off your ass and vote for your congressional representatives when the President isn't up for re-election.

The President only has the power to enforce laws (or abuse the shit out of executive orders like Obama did) and veto bills, with the President's veto being over-ridden by a congressional 2/3 majority rule. The congress has the power to MAKE laws and DECLARE WAR which is WAY more powerful.

I'm shocked the retarded people talking to you don't complain about their lack of ability to vote in members of the Supreme Court. They aren't elected either.

Congress >>>>>>>>>>> President >>>> Supreme Court.

AHEAD OF SCHEDULE

His somewhat broken speech us from hepatitis-c, which has been destroying his brain for years. He started a new treatment in 2010 to help with this. The reason his people keep electing him is because he gets a lot of good shit done, prob because no one takes him seriously and just passes whatever he proposes.

...

Just goes to show you that whether they are black or white, men of BOTH races can show women back to the kitchen.

The President is elected by the mandate of the people, not by the mandate of coastal socialist urbanites.

It fixes problems created from the fact that elections are about a singular leader instead of forming a parliament based on vote distribution.

Replace it with a system where you vote for parties and, for example, the Rust Belter party can get into parliament with 10% of the votes, while the LGBT Acronymicons get their appropriate 5% and don't feel the urge to constantly shove their interests into everyone's faces out of fear of being left out.
Make the hurdle 5% or so. It would be retarded if any party could get in without any significant amount of votes.

Agreed, I'm with her.

So the people in California should have less of a say than the people in bumfuck Wyoming?

Congress hasn't declared war since WWII yet we have been in nearly perpetual war since the Korean war. Congress passed a law stating the president can start a war pretty much however he wants a while back. Think it was called the war powers act. Im poopin and don't feel like looking it up right now.

>a group of anonymous electors come together to elect the president
>there are no serious consequences if they change their votes
I know that faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election but why would we ever give them the opportunity?

Yes.

Pic related

The EC values the equality of all states over those that happen to have higher populations. The sooner you accept that the states, not individual voters, are the functioning unit of your republic the sooner you can get on with accepting your new president.

>with an admission that some voices should be more powerful than others
Why is this a bad thing?
Living in the city evidently brainfucks you.

>some voices should be more powerful than others

The 1 to 1 for the people representation in our government is the house of representatives, the 1 to 1 for the states representation in our government is the senate. The president is elected via a hybrid system that tries to balance the number of states vs the population in influince.

Its layers of protection to ensure that no majority, or no minority, gains total control of government. If you give the president appointment by strict popular vote, id say you should give total control of supreme court justices to the senate.

yes and it happens everywhere because there's a disproportion of seats to population

in Canada, votes from people in PEI count 3 times more than someone from BC. It's to protect smaller provinces from having their interests toppled by larger populated provinces.

Do you think it's fair that just because California has a larger population, they should always decide national elections and override the interests of those who live in less populated states? It's the whole reason you guys have a senate. You need some form of protection for state and geographic interests at the federal level.

You're letting your anger at the results of the election affect your judgment. The rational behind the electoral college is clear, but that's not to say it's not debatable.

The second line of defense against tyranny. If the electors believe electing someone would be bad they can elect someone else. It would have dire consequences however, its not a regular part of the process, if things go that far then it falls to the general public to decide to accept or revolt against this.

Because if there wasn't an electoral college, I'd do what the democrats did and rig Hillary a few million votes

>I don't know of a single argument FOR the Electoral College that doesn't end with an admission that some voices should be more powerful than others
there isn't one. There isn't a single good argument for the Electoral College full stop. It's a relic of the days when the founding fathers were thinking: 'Yeah, democracy. Of course democracy, that shit's great. Only... maybe not the sort of democracy where the little people could push /us/ around.'

Don't even try defending Trump by defending the Electoral College, you'll just taint him by association. All you have to say if someone brings up the fact that Trump lost the popular vote is that yeah, he did, but for better or worse the US uses the electoral college and if liberals have a problem with this then they should have done something about it before the election.

Say that you're fully on-board if they want to remove it for the next election, but the rule is no backsies after the election has already been held just because you don't like the outcome. Overturning an election result does far, far more damage to the idea of democracy than the electoral college.

...

That's the only thing that makes all states in republic equal. Why should small states pay federal taxes if their vote only counts 1/10th of an overpopulated shithole?

Just use the simple answers.
1. Without the EC votes, smaller states would be useless for american democracy.
2. Without the EC votes, democrats would basically win every election thanks to California.
3. The EC system is good enough, but it would be much better if the "winner takes it all" shit was removed.

That's all you need to know to counter the retards.

Its interesting that EC was ok when bill clinton lost the popular vote in his second term but won EC. I guess its just a coincidence.

It's hard to say whether hillary would have won under a popular vote based system. Voters already know that only the state wide vote matters, so some don't vote because its already locked in as red or blue

If they go by pop. vote they just told 60 million people their vote doesnt matter.

kek

We are a Constitutional Republic and don't see value in the virtue of "equal vote for the individual" or any other pure democratic idea.

>win the popular vote against Obama
>Obama gets the nomination

>win the popular vote against Trump
>Trump gets the white house
Has there ever been a person more cucked in your history?

>i interviewed ten of the idiots i'm surrounded by in my life
>they all think hillary clinton will win the election
>therefore, its true

>i interviewed ten of the idiots i'm surrounded by in my life
>they all think the electoral college makes some votes count more than others
>therefore, its true

>2. Without the EC votes, democrats would basically win every election thanks to California.
Why is that a bad thing? If the majority of people think we should elect a democrat, then we should

All of the votes that are still coming in are from dead people..

It isn't about some voices being more powerful than others. It's a checks and balance system. Jesus christ.

Odd how the whiter the state is, the more intelligent it is.

you wouldn't have a united states anymore, genius. that's why it's retarded.

you know what a majority of people supporting a president is in the rest of the world? it's called a warlord.

Most moronic and uninformed post ITT

Democracy is retarded

Thankfully our founders time traveled and placed these rules to prevent the Hillary Clinton timeline

It'd be millions living in the same little bubble ruling over most of the land with absolutely no idea of what's going on in that said land.

>the founding fathers
>pro-democracy in any way whatsoever
lol how old are you?

has UK education been gutted?

Yeah California should just control all political power in the country that's a great idea why don't we just ask the almighty California how we should govern Mississippi I'm sure their insight would be brilliant and relevant you fucking mong

The electoral college makes perfect sense...if all the states have the same points.

Getting tired of discussing this but basically the Electoral College ensures that Americans can live all across the great country while still maintaining a voice that matters.

Most high-population metropolitan areas are naturally Liberal, it's just what happens when you get a huge amount of people from different lifestyles and ethnicities densely congregated. Those high-pop/metro areas also increase in population much more quickly than any non-metro area, both due to natural birth, and by people seeking the opportunity of big city life, more jobs, more industry, etc.

Without the EC eventually what would happen is that all of the high-pop/metro areas which are almost always Liberal would continue to grow and grow to the point where they were the only vote concentration that really mattered; politicians would obviously just target these groups and ignore everyone else and eventually it would lead to basically a dictatorship for the Democratic Party as they would never again lose to the Republicans.

By counting the more rural States (rural compared to the ones like California for example) in the EC it gives a better representation of the various lifestyles and cultures throughout the USA instead of just focusing on the high-pop/metro Liberal cities.

If the majority of people lived in District 1 they'd be voting to have the hunger games every year

Because California has enough illegals to fill Sweden two times over and since California let's them vote, it's simply not democratic at all.
Remove California from the voting system and the republicans would win without a problem for a century, that's how bad it is.

Exactly. It would be like telling your opponent in chess that the checkmate they placed you in doesn't matter because you removed more of their pieces from the board. You can't play/campaign and vote under one set of rules and then retroactively apply a different set of rules to determine the winner.

the popular vote has a 200,000 gap between the two candidates
that's more or less a half on each side, very literally
it could be seen as 51/49
if it was a little more like 70/30 then you could call the 70 percent the "major majority" and the 30 remaining percent the "minor minority"
however, the vote is so close to the midway point that what we have is a 51 percent "minor majority" and a 49 "major minority"
an electoral college ensures that the 49% "major minority," nearly half of the popular vote, aren't drastically outweighed by the 51% "minor majority," which wouldn't ensure fair treatment of the 49%
literally half of America would be at the mercy of the other, slightly larger half
having an electoral college stops this nightmarish scenario from ever happening and ensures that whether you are in the "major minority" or in the "minor majority," your vote is still worth as much as anybody elses

there is literally nothing wrong with this system

Because as a Californian, you live in BOTH the United States and California.

When I first learned about the US system in proper detail I thought it was stupid, but I was just an undergrad, and I was stupid too.
The vast majority of the law an American will be subject to over the course of his life will be written and passed in his democratic state legislature. The US federal government is not supposed to have a great deal of impact in your day to day life, its powers as originally intended are significantly less power than one would think. As an foreigner, some of your most powerful and meaningful contributions to political science (or philosophy if you're a STEMfag I just triggered) is the intense scrutiny with which your federal system was constructed and the preservation of the Federalist Papers.

If commiefornians want to live in a welfare state (for example), they should be voting for that in their state legislature, likewise, if they want to legalise recreational heroin use, that too is a matter for the state govenrment. That is the place for proper, responsive democratic governance the very intelligent people that designed your political system created for that purpose. The presidential election is closer to an election between states to elect the person that will be responsible for enacting the few, but far reaching powers allotted to the federal government over the states. In this sense, the electoral college is not designed to weigh the comparative worth of the votes of 320 million people as it is not a franchise of 320 million. Rather, the president of the federal government is elected in a vote with a franchise of 50, none of which have a vote of perfectly equal worth.

Tl:dr, actually engage with your state legislature, its more important to your day to day life anyway.

'all states having the same points' is what the senate does.

I'll help you. Just keep repeating this until it sinks in:

We fucking lost.

yes
t. socialist commiefornian who voted for socialists propositions and also trump because conservatives are better at keeping the feds out of my buisness.

It's also a logical fallacy to believe that the popular vote would have the same numbers if the EC wasn't in use. If every. It's counted regardless of location, people would vote more in areas where their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, D voters in Indiana don't always vote unless there is a local race that's important. R voters don't have much reason to vote in NY and CA.

And so when you change the rules you change the strategy. The outcome will be the same. I'm not sure if people are too dumb to understand this, or just ignore for convenience. Either way it's getting old.

When pressed, I can't think of some defense for the popular vote which doesn't involve the voices of dead people and people getting to voice their opinions multiple times in different precincts.

Thats because you never had a history lesson about your won country.

For fuck's sake, how many times are we going to have this thread?

Voting in general - Only one group will have their say, the other 49% get to eat shit
Referendum style popular voting - Public opinion can be swayed easily because people who live in the same concentrated location tend to have the same interests and similar mindsets
Electoral college (in practice) - Same as above but with a few key states instead of cities
Electoral college (in theory) - A more diverse range of groups has to be swayed in order to win, which theoretically ensures that you have to cater to the interests of all of them on some level, leading to more of the population being satisfied

Both are kinda shit, but pure, number-based popular vote is conceptually flawed from the outset, not just in practice. The electoral college at least TRIES to fix things, even if its implementation sucks.

Electoral College gives a voice to minority groups, forcing the president and presidential hopefuls to actually work with and listen to voices others than the majority, and create compromises rather than just enforce the rule of the majority.

In a way, it's funny that liberals are crying about dismantling the electoral college while at the same time talking about how minorities need more representation.

I find it funny that the same people who

There are two parts of congress.
The senate, and the house of representatives.
In the senate, every state is equal, and each state gets two senators. This is non negotiable. There are always 100 senators.
In the house, every state gets a proportionate amount of representatives entirely based on population. There are 435 representatives and each state gets them based off their population, with a minimum of one (no one knows why there are 435, it's just the way it is.) The number of representatives is changed every 10 years with the census.
The number of electors a state has is the number of senators it has (2) + the number of representatives it has (at least 1), so you have a minimum of 3 votes per state, plus Washington DC also gets electors equal to the state with the lower number of electors (3, it would be the same even if it followed the rules of the other states)
While this gives more relative electoral power per population to smaller states, it also gives a lot of electoral power to larger state.

The electoral college ensures that for someone to win the presidency they have to appeal to Americans from all parts of the country. You can't just win entirely off the south, or the mid-west, or the west coast, or new england. You have to win other parts of the country.
It also protects against voter fraud, since if it was easier to commit voter fraud in california it would affect the entire election without the electoral college. However with the college it just affects california and is less likely to change the outcome.

Every day until he's sworn in, probably.

A lot, we aren't dealing with CTR anymore but some personal goon squad of Soros himself.

There have only been 4 instances where the president wasn't the popular choice, so for anyone saying it keeps the gives the minority a voice and doesn't totally decimate their votes, I'm thinking that's horseshit.

just say "because it's 2016"

MEND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, DON'T END IT

The Electoral Vote is directly died to the House of Representatives. The poor population-to-Electoral Vote ratio is because the House of Representatives stopped increasing as the United States population increased. A larger house will minimize the population-to-Electoral College ratio differences across the several States.

This is the most needed, and most simplest, reform.

I don't understand why so many people, both on the left and the right, don't see this.

If there was no electoral college, "third parties" would be nationally viable overnight. Hell, we wouldn't need political parties.

Fuck the electoral college.

There's a very simple exercise that may help.

> Insert barrel in mouth
> Pull trigger

Still with us? Sorry you didn't change your mind.

You're ignoring the fact that there are 50 states with different interests. The individual does not matter on the federal level, the states do. The government is a republic with indirect representation at the federal level, not a direct democracy. The president was never popularly elected and never will be as long as we have this particular form of government.

Read Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. There is no mention of a popular vote at all. The state legislatures do not have to permit a popular vote, but they have chosen to by custom. The state legislatures could decide to pick the electors themselves or have the governor choose them. There is absolutely no requirement for the US to have popular elections for the presidency. "Equality of the individual" was never part of the deal.

Yes. Welfare rats shouldn't be twisting my government to pay for more welfare rats.

I think the electoral college is a great way for whites to still have a voice in the country. don't really care if subhuman mexicans from California don't like it.

>"Equality of the individual" was never part of the deal
Except with regards to state legislatures. Honestly you guys are missing a potential opportunity to get the American left more interested in state's rights and their state legislatures. Just saying.

By that argument, maybe we should abolish the Senate for a unicameral legislature. Please go back and read the Federalist Paper 62.

The left has always pushed federalist ideals. They're the ones convinced that federal law trumps (no pun indented) state law. I doubt that they'll have a change of heart.

>Remove EC
>Win 6 cities and you WIN

>FUCK YOU WHITEYS YOU VOTED FOR YOUR OWN SELF INTEREST, THINK OF THE COUNTRY FOR ONCE

>THE EC IS BAD BECAUSE IT DOESNT VALUE THE INDIVIDUAL, ONLY THE COUNTRY

Liberals, ladies and gents

Too bad it's not like the states can change how they handle the electoral college ya'know? Too bad, like, California couldn't put their money where there mouth is and change their voting laws from winner takes all in the electoral college.

THE ALT-LEFT WILL RISE!
PROTECT THE WEAK AND TRAMPLE THE UNEDUCATED!
HAIL HOPE!
HAIL LOGIC!
HAIL SCIENCE!
EMBRACE PARADOX!
LOVE OR DESPAIR!

because when the popular vote is less than 1% in difference (which it is in this election) it would force us to recount the entire nation and open up a month's long process of accusations of fraud and vote tampering that would make bush v gore FL recount look quaint

*6 cities with a majority of the population

>muh individualism

Fucking yanks.

Obama did it and "got away" with it, so stop complaining, now the other half gets to have a new president. Too little too late libs!

Obama won the national popular vote.

I live in California and the entire state is full of sheep. I'm grateful that cali can't push its shit agenda on everyone.

People in close proximity to each other begin to think the same thing.

If you slowly moved people from the Midwest into California, the percentage of Democrats would stay relatively constant. The bottom line is that the idea that each voter thinks independently on their own is just incorrect

the EC is based on population

and is adjusted regularly

electoral college at it's basic level is a safeguard against the stagnation of the american political system

every handful of election years a few protests and riots over >1,000,000 votes is preferable to the rioting of 60,000,000 voters who've been systematically screwed by urban enclaves having a stranglehold on the democratic system

it's a funky and flawed system, but for right now it's the only thing keeping democrats from never losing an election in your lifetime, and that's important in a democracy

to do away with it would kill the republic in 2-3 decades easily

any south will rise again folks should champion the death of the electoral college, after about 20 years you'll get your shot.

>Germany should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and rule without impunity over the rest of the smaller European countries
>California should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and rule without impunity over the rest of the USA

you shall never be able to fight back, you shall never be able to complain, because popular vote, lol.
nothing you can do, get fucked and be lorded over by San Fran faggots and Hollywood for all eternity, no power in your vote, no nothing.

what a lovely future.

The USA is a federation.

Here is your argument.

did they finish counting the popular vote yet?

this

notice Texas being up there with states that have smaller representation, and DC being down there with ones that have more representation

The states have to vote in unison, as INDIVIDUAL UNITS

These fucktards at every turn want to abolish the states and turn America into a fucking mob rule empire.

Just because Cali and NY have high turnout doesn't mean they can screw the rest of the country

Same in reverse, if urbanites had a low turnout, and the rest of the country had a very high turnout, the opposite would happen.

nope.

>The EC values equality of the constituency at the expense of equality of the individual.

There is literally nothing wrong with this.

This

>some voices should be more powerful than others
Congrats
You got it.
Mob rule btfo

Well that and we are a representive republic, all states have some say.

yeah, the winner takes all part of the electoral college is really shitty