Dealing with popular vote fags

Here's a simple analogy to deal with these losers.

Trump wasn't trying to win the popular vote. He didn't campaign in or run ads in high population states like CA and NY.

It'd be like if you and I were playing chess and you got me in checkmate, but then I throw a fit and contest the results because I took more of your pieces. Those aren't the rules of the game- taking more of your opponents pieces isn't how you win, so of course you're not going to play with that as your primary goal- your primary goal is checkmate.

Trump wasn't playing to win the popular vote because the popular vote isn't how you win. He was playing to win the electoral college because those are the rules of the game. And he won.

If the rules were different before either candidate started campaigning, and the popular vote decided the president, we would've seen a much different campaign from him. But as it stands, Trump had no incentive to campaign in California. He could've won millions of votes there and it wouldn't have meant shit- it would've been a waste of his resources.

Hillary took more of Trump's pieces, but Trump put her in checkmate. And checkmate was the goal from the very beginning. Both candidates went in knowing this.

Does this analogy make sense? Will it make normies understand? I'm drunk as shit so I honestly have no clue, but it sounded good when I typed it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

tl;dr damage control: the post

Good post m9

>hurr

Clinton specifically tried to flip Texas and Arizona and Georgia and failed. This is why her vote percentage was up in those states. Trump recognized the stupidity of trying to flip deep-blue states like California and focused on the many, many states like Pennsylvania that he could actually win in.

I feel that the Electoral college should be removed, or have the electors altered so there is a consistent elector to population ratio, which is done similarly for our House of Representatives -- the amount of seats are directly proportional to the population. However, even if this change occurs, the results of the 2016 election should not be altered, as both candidates campained using a strategy for the electors, not population dense areas.

The US is, first and foremost, a federation of states - states with their own very different economic demands, political ideals, social needs, and cultures. The Founding Fathers recognized this early on and added the Electoral College (not unlike the other checks and balances) as a way of ensuring too much power didn't end up concentrated in one branch of government or a handful of cities or states.

As it stands, in a pure popular vote a candidate could lose EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in the US by 45-55 and still win the election if they carried NYC, Chicago, and LA by as little as 65-35. The Electoral College prevents such a feudalistic imbalance of power from happening by ensuring that the winner of the election isn't simply the person who appealed to the most voters, but instead appealed to the most different kinds of voters - the plurality of states.

This helps encourage candidates to focus on building coalitions and developing platforms that appeal to a broad range of Americans instead of one or two special interest groups.

Trump won, how is this damage control.

Says the loser

Feel free to fuck off to a country which does that, retard

The electoral college exists because this is a federation, there is no reason higher turnout in california should make them more relevant than kansas

>Massive voter fraud
>Popular vote

>But but more population means our state should have more electoral votes.

Population =\= registered legal voters

...

Still don't like it?

Have another

>America with all the non-shitty non-boring pieces removed

lol no thanks

People that whine about the electoral college are the biggest faggots.

Lol.

Donald Trump tweeted that the electoral college was a disgrace and should be done away with in 2012. In his recent 60 Minutes interview he affirmed that position.

It's outdated and it grossly over-emphasizes the power of sparsely populated wastelander votes. Wyoming has 1/8 the electoral votes as New York, but less than 1/40 the population.

There is no defense of this system.

It's not quite how the electoral college works in terms of checkmate vs most pieces left but you get the point across that winning the electoral college vs winning the popular vote are two completely different things and call for two completely different strategies.

Considering that Trump did quite well with the electoral college vote there's not really any reason to believe he wouldn't have done just as well if his objective was the popular vote. He ran an incredible campaign and Clinton ran a fucking terrible one. It's essentially why she lost.

Just remind them that it's the United States Of America, not the one big populated state of America.

If they want to get rid of the electoral college, they they are also advocating elimination of the US Senate, statehouses, and state laws and borders.

>damage control

How does it feel knowing you will control absolutely no branches of the federal government for the next 4 years minimum? Even your beloved supreme court will be bent conservative for the next 30-40 years by the time Trump is done with it.

If majority rules, then there is no reason to let black people vote.

Why is this shit still going on?

>ran an incredible campaign
>got less votes than Romney

Both candidates ran shit campaigns. Clinton's was definitely shittier though. 8 million Obama voters didn't turn out for her.

>all the urban shitholes

as if trump would've done better in LA and San Diego if he campaigned there.

Yeah or women, who let me remind you were thought to be so stupid that even male niggers got the right to vote 60 years before they did

holy shit america would literally be white mexico

There are more women than men in the United States, user...

>ran a shit campaign
>broke voter records in the primaries and won the biggest upset in US political history

Stay mad, we won with a crushing and legendary victory, and there's literally nothing you can do about it. I know it hurts but coming on here and making a fool of yourself is only going to prolong the pain.

Of course he would have. More Republicans live in California then any other state. With the EC in place there's no reason for them to show up to the polls.

The states vote based on popular vote of the residents already.

In CA Democrats are 45% of the electorate. Independents are 23%. Republicans are 26%. Even if they won 100% of independents they'd lose.

>being a globalist fag

>as if trump would've done better in MI, PA, NC, or WI if he campaigned there.

this will help too
youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs

I mean, if you have to bus people around to vote outside their districts and you still loose...

>trump won states with poor dumb whites that means he'll win states with rich white people.

he literally got 14% of the vote in Manhattan

>those states are comparable to inner cities
Anta baka?

Its like arguing the indians won the world series because they scored more runs throughout the series but only won 3 of the 7 games

Inner cities are supposed to decide the win in PA and MI, he won them because he rigorously campaigned there and reached the rural areas

BUT THIS SHOULD ALL STOP AFTER HES SWORN IN RIGHT.

please make this shit stop.

but he didn't even come close to winning Philadelphia or Detroit...

I hate to be one to call people retards but seriously how could you not understand my point

Saw a post earlier that Trump won 3,000 counties to Clinton's 100+. Basically if you took out one big county, like Los Angeles, Trump would have the popular vote by a few million.

Barron is beautiful!!!

If you think California should change what another state voted for, you should be hanged.

sauce on this offensive loli

This is actually a really good analogy. I think I'll steal it and use it whenever it comes in handy.

Yeah, it's a good analogy. We can argue about the merits of the electoral college for the future, but that's not the same as wanting to change the rules of the game right after you lose. I don't remember these people calling for a popular vote back when they were still crowing about the "blue wall" that made a Trump victory impossible.

Land is inherently more valuable than people.
Therefore land owners should have more of a say in how we are governed.

Don't believe me?
It's not considered sedition if a group of people take their belongings and expatriate.
It is considered sedition if landowners take their land and secede.

Urbanites are simply worth less than rural folks are.

Just search tomo-chan. It's her friend when she was younger. It even has a story about one of the fathers impregnating his 13 year old wife

>a state can decide who it sends to the electoral college
California, illinois, and New York should start divvying up their electors proportionally to the popular vote. That will be a step in the right direction, and I'm sure other states will follow the lead.

Too long, normies will never get it. Plus, If they are already getting off to the idea of the popular vote they have already denied all reason. Their only option at that point is firing squad or gas.