Hey Sup Forums question

hey Sup Forums question..

why do you have an electoral college? who installed EC? and why are the democrats asking to "rethink" the EC?

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305830-sanders-us-should-rethink-electoral-college

Other urls found in this thread:

americantraditions.org/Articles/Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You can literally google this faster, and to a more extensive answer, than you'll receive here.

get a democracy and basic rights for all people and you'll find out.

We have an EC so that the massive shitholes that are the coastal cities cannot dominate national policy like dystopian fiction straight out of the fucking hunger games.

The DNC wants to get rid of the EC because they want the massive shitholes that are the coastal cities to dominate national policy like dystopian fiction straight out of the fucking hunger games.

> flag
since when do you rich fat dickhead know anything about elections?

i googled, but i figured i should ask Sup Forums since their good at giving a nice description

but trump agreed the EC was a "disaster" on his twitter page.

nice digits guys

So New York and Los Angeles don't get to decide for all the USA.

For a democracy, we however are a republic.

>egypt

comment/opinion immediately discarded

It was developed precisely for this election so it would give Trump an unfair advantage. Is that what you want to hear? Because you certainly don't want to hear about how Clinton beat Obama in the popular vote. Nobody rioted over that. You lost fair and square, too bad.

والله ابغيك اة والله

The EC is fucked up in the sense that, on paper at least, it is supposed to be split according to the popular vote whereas most states are winner take all.

Since both parties take turns exploiting this, nobody is really interested in changing it.

>nobody is really interested in changing it.
Well except when it gets a republican elected, apparently.

We have an EC because our Founders hated democracy. It's really that simple.

This. Not one single democrat would be campaigning to abolish the elctoral college if the votes had landed in their favour. If Hillary was now the president elect but Trump would have gotten the popular vote, they would be bleating on about how the system works etc etc.

They are all just sore losers because the vast majority of democrates are millenials and women, i.e. baby's first election and ovary logic.

Fuck them, and when possible, grab 'em right in the pussy

So how pissed off is your government that the candidate they bought lost?

democrats want to undermine state's rights and the power of states to elect their leader.

We are called the United States of America not America.

The electoral college itself is to speed up the process at a time when people had to run around on horses.

What Democrats are actually complaininf about, the method of apportionment, is based on the Connecticut Compromise.

The reason Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college is so their illegal voting isn't limited by state lines.

More or less downplaying it. Probably realize that if they chimp out like the niggers are they'll never have any hope of reelection.

Seriously though, the electoral college could save the conservatives much more than the liberals as time goes. The democrats can actually win every election just due to California and New York only assuming the race is tight.

Was asking the saudi bro faggot

If Hillary had won via EC the right would be bitching today. Especially if she won EC and lost pop.

Actually it is in our favor. The real trick would be to get New York and California's electoral votes apportioned like Maine and Nebraska.

Obviously, but it would change nothing

Electoral college was created to ensure the small states don't get their needs drowned out by the larger states. We don't have a pure democracy for this reason. People were very weary about our constitution before it was ratified because at the time they were strongly against a strong central government (monarchy) and wanted more states rights so the federalists had to include many provisions to ensure state's rights such as the bill of rights. The first 10 amendments only apply to states not civilians. Only until the 14th amendment was ratified they started applying to civilians. So yeah, we take our states rights somewhat seriously. Or we're supposed to at least.

You are still getting paid CTR?

We elect the President of the United States. Not the President of California and New York.

With that said, the EC actually discourages republicans in those states from voting. It cuts both ways.

Because of states-rights. Every state is represented in congress equally

Eh? No for real. americantraditions.org/Articles/Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy.htm

Basically
>Each state gets a set number of electors that were choosen by the people
>Some states have more electors than others, but is logistical, which means the difference between bigger states is smaller than the difference between smaller states
>Each of the 5 imaginary regions in the US have at least one major state
You have to get 270 ECs at minimum to win. Getting a 269/269 tie means that the one with the most states (like if one got 24 states and the other got 26 states).
>This is to ensure state rights are a priority, makes rigging elections harder, and makes sure all demographics have a say.

> and why are the democrats asking to "rethink" the EC?

Democratic Presidential candidates keep winning the popular vote. In other words, more people vote democrat than they do republican. Yet, the candidate doesn't become President.

This does seem somewhat odd.

You are fucking literally retarded.

The EC or any other weighted voting system is a mechanism designed to protect political minorities from the tyranny of the mob. Period. The only objection Democrat faggots have to the EC is it has twice in the last 16 years protected a minority they despise: whites who have jobs.

Its in the constitution because states rights and the lack of feasibility of a popular election at the time. We are a coalition of independent states, not a traditional country.

> minority they despise: whites who have jobs.

>2016
>Thinks Government money comes from taxation...

Why wasn't Electoral College bad when obama got elected?
Why is it only bad AFTER losing an election?

Just fucking kill all screaming liberals.

>This does seem somewhat odd.
It would. However, Most of our states are larger than your country.

We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. States have certain rights, and they need proper representation.

>Why wasn't Electoral College bad when obama got elected?

Because Obama won the popular vote and the electoral collage vote?

>We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

The United States has been a representative democracy since 1789.

Idiot.

The States hold 50 individual elections for President. The candidate who can form the broadest coalition across all those sub-cultures, wins the election.

I thought you had 51 states

The reason they want to "rethink" it is because their candidate lost. Thing they didn't realize is that shr lost the popular vote too.

We're a Democratic Republic.

>being figuratively retarded
>2016

It was instituted for a few reasons
1) It was a concession to southern slave holding states...they had lower populations (of voters, not counting slaves). With the EC (and the senate giving equal stature to all states regardless of population), they had a better chance at keeping their slavery as a way of life.
2) It was meant to be a safeguard against the 'tyranny of the majority' and populist/mob rule. But this has obviously been done away with. The shapers of our constitution envisioned a system where the electors were not at all bound by the popular vote...meant to be well educated, upstanding members of society - 'elites' that could act as a back stop against demagogue coming to power. The founding fathers were incredibly well read men, they knew their history, they had read Plato's republic...they knew the pitfalls of democracy. But such checks on the power of the masses have been largely retired. Now we are exposed. lets hope Trump is a decent man and wont attack congress and the supreme court the way he has attacked the media and election process if he feels they are tracking against him. It would be a shame to blow up our republic rather than fixing our problems.

And, the UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy.

The defining deature of both the UK and the US's political systems is: representative democracy.

No. we have 50, and several territories, the largest being Puerto Rico which doesn't decide the President. Did you mean Washington DC? That's our only territory which holds a Presidential election.

>who installed EC

The founders. It wasn't some bullshit law that could just be easily repealed. Not even in the Bill of Rights. It's in the original text of the constitution itself.

tldr: that shit was genius and isn't going anywhere.

The defining characteristic between a republic and a democracy is the separation of powers. In a strange twist of fate, you are becoming more republican while we are becoming more democratic.

Er...

Mate, the defining feature of a representative democracy is the electoral process.

>In a strange twist of fate, you are becoming more republican

Er... we have a monarch. She's our head of State. We don't have a President. We aren't a republic. The population of the UK aren't "citizens", we are "subjects" of the Crown.

STFU the monarch has no real power

Superficial liberals change their tune at the drop of a hat. Just wait till we're geriatrics they'll vote to Logan's Run our asses the minute they have a crisis.

The Royal Perogative...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative

Trump: 62,972,226
Clinton: 62,277,750

Whens the last time the monarch has made any real decision in britain?

>the sky is green
Why do you make up stuff?

It's nothing
List of whines from major elections/ referendums in 2016 only
>Brexit
60% turnout is undemocratic
younger people with longer remaining life span bowing to older people is undemocratic
>Columbia war
People not affected by war voting is democratic
Peace via election is undemocratic
>US elections
Primary delegate system is undemocratic
Electoral college is undemocratic

Like it matters when they concede anyway.

Er... as of 13th Novermber:

Clinton: 60,981,118
Trump: 60,350,241

snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/

1976.

The popular vote is important. It shows who has more support in the country.

Most voters don't want Trump as President. That's just a simple fact.

Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner. That's just a simple fact.

the electoral college was created by republicans in order to suppress the votes of women and minorities in blue states. It needs to be destroyed

Trump won the popular vote if you discard illegal immigrants. Also, it's really quite simple. States with smaller populations should be allowed to contribute in the election process. If you removed the electoral college you would have liberal hellholes dictate every election and they nearly always vote left because it's fair to assume anyone paying for a 400sq ft. apartment for a million dollars is a complete and utter moron.

Democrats don't care about democracy.

Nope.

This isn't "pure" anything.

It's simply the number of voters who voted for a particular candidate. From this fact yu can tell who is the most popular. In this case, Clinton was the most popular candidate.

look up the New Jersey Compromise you fucking idiot.

Way to miss the point entirely.

Yeah, but we have dismantled the part of the EC that prevents the tyranny of the majority (the electors now are mostly bound to simply follow the will of the voters in their states). All thats left of the EC that is meaningful is the vestige that gives rural areas the upper hand in our elections. see

> tfw got the high score achievement but still died.

a fucking scimitar

>Because Obama won the popular vote
Not in the DNC primaries.

>but trump agreed the EC was a "disaster" on his twitter page
Trump may be someone that most of us here support and admire, but he isn't infallible. He probably thought he was going to lose when he said that. I support the use of a faithful electoral college because it recognises the US as a republic of states and doesn't allow the urban parts to dictate the whole.

Obama won the popular vote in both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.

>The EC is OK in my book because it skews power in favor of my interests

Because we're a federal republic.

Originally, it was because of how big the US is and how long it took to travel. So what happened was that the individual states would send their elector representatives to a convention to cast their votes. These individuals would be charged with using their brains and political knowledge to elect the proper man for the office.

There have been a few times in American history where the electors had to choose a new man for the presidency because the original candidate of the party fell over dead before the electors got together.

The electoral college itself was a way to allow all states to have a say in who gets elected president, but weighing each state's amount of votes based on their population. That's why the number is 2 (for its two senators) + # of seats they have in the house of representatives. This is literally "the people" (who are always represented by their state) choosing the president.

As modern communication and modern transportation came around, states no longer wanted their electors voting for whoever the elector wanted, so the passed laws requiring their electors to vote exactly the way directed by their state's population.

Didn't Trump post that tweet four years ago? Surely there's more recent evidence of his hypocrisy.

the repulicans have won he popular vote exactly once since I was born (1989) because 1/2 the population lives in yankeeville, cali, and florida
fuck that noise, I'm not gonna bow down to the dems because they have pure numbers on their side, without the EC no one would give a shit about iowa and we'd already be a socialist shithole

>The DNC wants to get rid of the EC
They've been trying to get rid of the constitution for years. Not surprised.

The EC has a long and complicated history of change but has been in place to some degree since the rise of political parties in the early 1800s. It is in place for two reasons:

1) It alters the popular vote by giving extra weight to low-population states. Every state has a number of electoral votes equal to its number of Congressional representatives: two (each state has two senators) plus its number of House representatives (determined by population). This ensures that coastal cities, which make up the majority of the population, can't take the rural states for a ride, permanently ignoring their interests. This is a problem in some states (namely IL, where only Chicago's Cook county votes left but is itself enough to install a Democrat government almost every election).

2) To make sure an unqualified person never becomes president. There is some truth to those petitions asking the electors to disregard the vote and elect Hillary anyway. The electors are not elected and are not obligated to follow their state's voting pattern and can choose whoever they want. This was to prevent someone exceedingly charismatic from gaining power without the proper credentials to back it up, but in our polarized political climate this would legitimately risk another civil war.

In truth, both parties have discussed adjusting or even axing the EC for decades now, but electoral reform is extremely difficult to pass in the US, even if we desperately need it. Most people simply don't understand how our government works, let alone something as arcane as the EC. Trump's election has just made liberals butthurt enough to actually care about it.

To prevent shit like picrelated on a national scale

>that elementary school math
lel that pic is obviously made by a nigger

States originally allowed a more representative vote of the popular vote. But this resulted in the smaller states being ignored by the candidates. So the smaller states passed state laws to make the winner of the popular vote (in that state) to get all the electoral votes of the that state. That change got them much more time and attention of the candidates. In this modern age, it got them millions to billions in money spent on the state in campaign ads and events.

The EC itself is to help protect the US population from being ruled entirely by just the largest cities.

Everything created by the founding fathers was to balance power. They balanced the power of our states to elect a president and Demonrats are surprised.

> Electoral college is undemocratic

> I wish the 10 largest cities alone could decide the outcome of the election

Trump had more states support him

What does CTR stand for? I missed its evolution.

I forgot my image, how could I possibly expect you to know what I'm trying to say, a thousand apologies

More Americans voted for Clinton.

To avoid "tyranny of the majority". Also, having the EC by state gives a better reflection of the needs/interests across all the populations of America rather than just coastal metros. Large population centers will almost always be liberal because of huge poor populations that need hand outs and huge rich populations that aren't affected by liberal tax policies. The rest of us regular flyovers work middle-class jobs and are very negatively affected by liberal tax policies as well as globalization of our industries. But I digress, by the nature of metros (much faster population growth than rural areas), they would hold all power in popular vote elections.

Big portion of Clinton voters aren't even citizens

Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries.

The popular vote is not (as) important in a country as geographically and culturally diverse as the US, where certain cultures make up the majority. The coastal cities make up the majority of the population, and under a popular vote would have carte blanche to never see to the needs of the rural states.

Without the EC, people in traditionally red states may as well not even vote, because their numbers will never outmatch the blue cities. In fact, you may as well take away their right to vote because you're already saying their concerns don't matter and shouldn't be dignified; voting is just a formality at that point.

>More illegal aliens voted for Clinton.
FTFY

hehe

Do you know how your electoral system works?

In 2008 Obama won the popular vote in the Presidential election.

Yeah man, fuck those cities and their massive tax bases that basically subsidize all of "real" america that are basically cesspools of poverty and meth addiction!

protip: you are welcome to secede any time. you need your urban centers; your urban centers no longer need you.

Probably been said all thorugh the thread but I'm no browsing it.

It is to prevent the large financially stable states from deciding the fate of smaller states. Not every fucking state has Silicon valley, wallstreet, and hollywood keeping it from collapsing.

An "illegal" cannot vote in the US. Only citizens of the US can vote in the US Presidential election.

im an oregon fag whos lived in both the blue and red areas of the state, i have ties and family in both the blue and red areas of the state.

The red areas hate the blue, frankly because the blue doesn't even know the red exists. they literally think the state ends at Hood River. And they control, as evident in your pic, everything.

also, I still love Oregon, and any canadian army or gov official trying to push their weight here, will be killed.

Most protesters are white and hispanic. Do NOT pin the debauchery on us. Don't be like the mainstream media.