Hmmm

Really makes you think...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I don't understand, California has the bigger population, so Hillary won.

wow it's almost like the states elect the president not the people

>Subtract 3 million illegal votes from Hillary and she loses the popular vote

Really makes you think...

this is what lincon fought for

Thank god for that.

t. Californian atheist

i can confirm people from california are basically worthless

Given that only 1/4 of votes I'm cali are legal US citizens this is fine

California deserves about 1/5th of it's current voting power. Maybe 11 electoral votes.

California is my least favorite state.

why doesnt every state just get one electorial vote instead of this bullshit you get 20 you get 3 etc.?

All those votes in Wyoming really swung the election right?

can confirm
t. californian

I really need to make an infographic because I'm tired of having to type this out in all of these threads. The sad thing is I have yet to see anybody else explain this beside me.

Number of seats in the House of Representatives = Electoral College Votes (plus the seats of the Senate)

Population to Electoral Vote ratio is directly linked to the number of seats in the House of Representatives

Increase the number of seats in the House and you will minimize the population to Electoral Vote ratio

It's that simple.

start a fucking war so we can kill you faggots, or move the fuck out.

You end up getting tiny shit hole states being the same as say TX

Get out CTR shill.

Good. Calicucks a shit

California should be split into regions, some areas went completely red

that way it would not be a free grab because of LA for the democrats

It's good to remind California of it's inherit inferiority

so move to wyoming then

Hmm, really makes you think.

If the electors had to be proportional to the population than it would be just a popular vote election, dumbass.

Yes but people aren't going to spend any time in Wyoming. And California is 66 free electoral votes to the Democrats, guaranteed. It's safe. Not to mention NY and sometimes FL.

This is fair. The average person from Wyoming is worth 362% as much as the averaged pozzed inner city San Fran barista who caught hep C from his underground hipster artiste tattoo parlor.

>land votes
>not people
t. hick

I thought liberals liked equality

You just discovered what states are.

People don't understand that the US is essentially a collection of small countries.

Good, the Electoral College is working as planned then

CALIKUCKS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE PERIOD LMAO

>urbanization
what is it?

If someone in Wyoming dies, it means significantly more than if someone in California dies. Therefore Wyoming gets more electoral votes per person.

I like how they never use the numbers of eligible voters. Nope, just people in general.

About 10 million of the population in California are illegal mexicans, they are counted in censuses and increase how many electors they have

i don't see any problem with this.

It's supposed to be like that to protect Wyomingites from Californians like me

>Hippie liberal sister posts this on FB
>Tell her "This is exactly why they have the system, so that even people in small states get a say. If you did it by popular vote than 6 highly liberal cities would control the whole country"
>"Well people in cities tend to be more educated, shouldn't we want the more educated people making decisions?"
>mfw

At least Thanksgiving will be fun. I'm not taking the MAGA hat off.

...

Blatant bait, but I agree.

Californians being allowed any sort of say in politics poses a threat to the republic. They're all socialist, marxist, anti-freedom nutbars. They should be in mental facilities.

But it won't be a waste of money if you campaign in California as a Republican because you can pick up a number of Electoral Votes despite California being largely Democratic. Depending how the Electoral Votes are allocated, you still have the Electoral Votes based on the Senate, each state having two Electoral Votes regardless of their population, to win.

Currently there are 538 Electoral Votes. If the Electoral Votes were proportionally allocated and those are based on the number of seats of House of Representatives, you will have 18.5% of the Electoral Votes that could be won through other means. These 1/5 of the Electoral Votes could either be allocated to the over all winner within each state, two Electoral Votes, or to the over all winner of the national vote, 100 Electoral Votes. The former method is what I am leaning for.

not every state is equal in their contribution to the country

What the fuck Vermont?

United States != United humans

>They're all
nah. It is about 65/35 in dem/rep votes every election, and not all the normal people dems are straight socialist.
What is true, is that the state has become a jungle gym for those kind of ideas to grow and fester, and for the vocal minority to drag a lot of normal people along for the ride. unfortunately.
t. Californian.
State is pretty shit tho.

Did you ask her why she thinks poor black families shouldn't have equal voting power?

Kek

She lives in Chicago and so "the blacks" she knows all voted for Clinton and live in the same cities as people like her.

To be fair, Wyoming only gets 1 electoral college vote from a population standpoint, since every state gets 2 from their senators.

The problem with this is that 10-15 million Conservatives in California get a vote worth zero electoral votes.

Give all Californians an equal vote and we can talk about giving all Americans an equal vote.

Hmm, maybe we should let metro areas alone decide who is the President and let everyone else get fucked?
Why don't they whine about this shit in the Senate?
Senate Math
Now every Wyomingite is worth 664 Californians.
Fucking retards.

>What is a ratio
>What is 704,000:105,000 = 1

Why the fuck are the electoral votes in the states winner-take-all
for example If clinton got 47% of votes compared to trump's 49% in Florida, why shouldn't they take these percentages transfer into electors? so they're split and accurately represent the population of the state and not just the person who got 1% higher

>liberals demanding to rule the countryside from their castles like tyrants
How long do they really think that'll last before all out revolt?

a few do, it's up to the states

You faggots keep posting this without providing any fucking source

They tried this shit on me in like 3rd grade. Still don't care.

Every state gets minimum two electoral votes, so it's actually 53 vs. 1.

Fucking normies.

The electoral college was not always winner take all.

There is actually no process on how electors are chosen beyond "The States will Appoint Electors based on their population" in the Constitution.

In the good old days States would either directly appoint whomever the fuck they wanted, or they would hold a referendum and allow the voters to choose electors.

Now however, most States tie all their electoral votes to the popular vote of their State because Winner-Takes-All gives them more power. The Rust Belt, which is the forgotten industrial heartland of the US, is normally irrelevant flyover territory, but during the election it becomes the decider of the leader of the Free World.

Each state have their own rules. Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral Votes based on Congressional Districts.

The Congressional District Method has its flaw in that congressional districts are notoriously gerrymandered.

I'm for the proportional allocation of the Electoral Votes based on the number of seats House of Representatives to the top two vote getters, to keep things simple, regardless of congressional districts.

this confused me but then i realized the wyomingite is bigger because he has cancer :(

The system makes sense. Mountain folk are superior to Californians.

Is that why your irrelevant shitposthole has so much land, leaf?

Wow it's almost as if the individual states elect the president instead of the individual people so that presidents can't simply focus on large population centers and then steal the entire election

>I'm for the proportional allocation of the Electoral Votes based on the number of seats House of Representatives to the top two vote getters, to keep things simple, regardless of congressional districts.
you see, nobody would be complaining about the electoral college if that was the case.

This. You mention this concept to a normie and they just look at you like a fucking slack jawed retard. Usually the 'smart' educated leftists who have no clue what a federation is. The federal government is supposed to be a limited agency to protect the collective and preside over inter-state issues (commerce).

Cry more, faggot

>In the good old days States would either directly appoint whomever the fuck they wanted, or they would hold a referendum and allow the voters to choose electors.

This is true.

For more information, read this Wikipedia article.

Alternative methods of choosing electors
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors

>california is home to millions of illegals
>state makes it very easy for illegals to vote
>republican candidate is promising to deport illegals

wow like you even need a source you fucking idiot of course every illegal was out voting

>he believes in objective truth!

the power of KEK makes things true just by posting them on the internet

And yet, no one ever bothers to campaign in Wyoming.

Wyoming is also one of the biggest mineral states in America and provides most of america's natural gas and energy

While California makes
N O T H I N G
O
T
H
I
N
G

Why do leeches act entitled?

Californians can move to Wyoming if having 4 votes matters that much to them. It never does.

sounds like you should have raised hell about this 4 years ago...it's not like this is a new system or anything

Really makes me roll on the floor laughing
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Agreed, everyone is a fucking idiot/psycho here

Sauce on the second one? Need more ammo against libcucks.

Yeah but Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes while Cali has 55

Then why didn't your candidate campaign there?

does this math only hold for states with 3 electors?

>California had a 30% voter turnout this year
>Mathwise, it was only 211,636 votes per electoral
>Forgetting that electorals are never split, thus Wyoming will still be only 3/55 of what California gets to say

This reasoning is why the electoral needs to stay.

the framers did hence the house of representatives vs the senate

How many of those in California are illegals?

I say we take 50 of their electoral college votes and give split them between real American states like Alaska and Oklahoma.

Well that's sort of the beauty of their system. Without the electoral college system, you'd just have any area that can play the high population density game becoming the sole arbiters of political direction. State interests would get steamrolled and a heavily rural country would be dictated by the whims of urban interest.
With this system, population is still the heavyweight factor, but it's capped off on both ends in terms of how much it can steamroll and be steamrolled to allow for smaller but still important states and groups of people to have at least some voice.

It literally prevents marginalization.
So of course the progressive left hates not marginalizing people, since marginalizing people is something they explicitly declare against and it wouldn't be liberalism if they had it any other way.

Seriously!

It's fucking hard to redpill normies if this place doesn't share sources. It really goes further than shitposting memes.

...

Well that's the point of electoral system, isn't it?

Isn't that what they're complaining about in the OP pic?

So what you want is the west coast and east coast to run the country. To just tell everyone else that, sorry more mexicans live in LA, so we must do what they want?

Thats the dumbest shit ever, its there for a reason to make sure every small state isnt dwarfed and has a say so.

>Nothing
I hate California, but they do produce something like 50% of US Produce (particularly fruits), and like 35% of US Meat (cattle and fish).

Also, their tech sector is huge.

Wyoming is that state and that is the state is comparing with California in the infographic in the OP is talking about.

>land votes
it used to, we should bring back property ownership requirements

>The Congressional District Method has its flaw in that congressional districts are notoriously gerrymandered.

I live in Maine and I can tell you it's pretty accurate here as far as where all the lib-tards live and where the sane working folks live.

I wonder if the results were the other way around if you pussies would be crying about this right now?

...

I think the best solution would be for each state to act like Maine or Nebraska.

People in Wyoming are worth more than Californian scum.

If they had less immigrants then the state would be worth more.

...

>Not all Californians vote blue
>Not all Wyomingites vote red

The Wyomingite should only be 190% (the square root of 362%) the height of the Californian so that his area covers 362% of the Californian's, otherwise the illustration is misleading. I thought leftists like science and math.

Yeah and one question because I refuse to believe this.

There are states where illegals, and natives can vore WITHOUT ID??????
Here you'll get NOTHING done without ID. It's obligatory to carry it with you at all times even

hey you fags wanna know a secret? you're supposed to talk to people around you in your densely populated state to try and get them to vote for /yourguy/, which is a luxury to people in an isolated place like Wyoming. I'm a poo in the loo and i got at least 10 niggers and kikes to vote trump since i work at a gas station, which is the equivalent of ~1.5 votes of a Wyoming hermit if you wanna do that retarded 362% stuff. Face to face interactions can really change someones mind, especially if you come at them with facts and hold back your autism