Is the Electoral College Unfair?

Is Joel right?

Is the electoral college unfair?

Other urls found in this thread:

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
youtu.be/JPA9bKz2meI?t=11s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

joel is a numale

Is current year man against the electoral college? cause if so, I am too.

>When you had 8 years to change to a fairer system, but didn't because to planned to rig it for hillary.

holy shit. What kind of cucks genuinely watch that shit

Your vote only matters in your state.

Big surprise.

>Wymoingians
>Wymoing
Nope. He lost his argument when he could!'t even research the state's name.

United STATES

> democrats win
> leftists say the system is perfectly fine and has been working since the creation of the country
> Trump wins
> leftists say that the system doesn't represent what the americans want

i mean for the sake of devils advocate, hillary won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

I doubt that they would care if hillary won the electoral college but lost the national vote though

Technically 16 years, they complained about it when Bush won.

>Is the electoral college unfair?


Its necessary to limit the advantage of states with larger populations to at least some extent. America is a union of Sovereign States that all need to be equally represented on the federal level.

For fucks sake learn about the structure of government before you post shit like this.

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment.

YOU THINK THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS UNFAIR!

COME TO THE FUCKING UK!
our first past the post system is a fucking shambles, Especially when you have more than 2 parties.

UKIP received 4 million votes in our last election and got 1 MP
SNP received 3.5 million and get 53 MPs

Fucking bullshit.

You're a shitty devil's advocate. If Popular vote determined the president, 1: people would vote differently, people in deep blue or deep red states don't bother voting because they know their state won't flip, and 2: Strategies of Trump would be different, he would holy rallies and campaign with a different strategy to reach people in California and Texas, not just swing states.

And Sanders would have won.

The people in Wyoming produce food and other necessary crops that allow Joel to live comfortably as a cuck.
Without them, "toxic masculinity" would see Joel murdered and the mother of the child he produced raped for resources.

Oh shit lads Joel is going hard in the paint to explain how bad the electoral college is

even with electoral college Hillary would've won if the number of delegates by state was representative

>win by 1%
>get all the delegates

His state also gets more government attention, what's his point?

If I don't understand quantum physics, is it unfair, or an I just stupid?
Because the electoral college is easier to understand than simple algebra.

why don't they want to change the winner takes it all too?
THey just want california to get more electors cause they know will be democrats even half the population of california is republican

>This system is bullshit because I lost! WAAAAAH CHANGE IT NOW!

Maybe move to Wyoming.

But you probably wash dishes for a living and Wyoming needs real men.

It's like these fuckers don't realize they're free to leave their shit state.

>commiefornia and the southern tip of Florida should determine our political leaders.

Fuck no, God bless the electoral college.

>Isn't learning fun?
Why do liberal's always have to be condescending?

If the electoral college is unfair, then why are the Democrats now complaining about it or have never had an issue with it before?

Whenever their candidate wins, they don't say a word about the electoral college.

>They still would have won with the popular vote

That's not the point. If the U.S omitted the electoral college, the presidential election would be a whole other ball game. In that, more people would have voted that could have changed the outcome of the race.

They only think it's unfair because (((their))) candidate lost. If Clinton won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, no libcucks js would be complaining about the electoral college at all.

Hillary was outstratted boohoo.

it is actually pretty close if you only look at the house members (subtract out the senators)
if commiefornia wants more senator representation they can break up into multiple states

Joel isn't right, because the electoral college votes are given by a first past the post system. Whoever wins California gets 55 electoral college votes, and whoever wins Wyoming wins 3 electoral college votes. If everyone eligible to vote in Wyoming voted, the winner would receive 3 votes. If 3 people voted in all of California, the winner would receive 55 electoral votes regardless.

The votes aren't given on a proportional representation basis so Joel's maths is completely wrong and doesn't apply to the system. Perhaps he should learn how it works before he parrots a Facebook image he saw.

They'd get more representation if they split in to 3 to 5 states.
And individual regions of the state would have their interests better represented all around.

The votes of rural States are "weighted", because we're a fucking federal Republic. All parts of the Union must be involved in creating a government - not just the populous areas. That's why we have the Senate, which gives Wyoming two out of its three electoral votes (Senate Reps + House Reps = Electoral Delegates).

democratic primaries 2008
Candidate Barack Obama Hillary Clinton
Delegate count 2,272.5 1,978
Contests won 33 23
Popular vote 17,584,692[1][a] 17,857,501[1][a]
Percentage 47.3% 48.0%

It's not like the electoral college is something that Repubicans just added last month and NONE of these faggots were crying about it when they thought Hillary would win.

Up until his first special on trump at some point last year he kept his show away from serious political bullshit for the most part and was actually fairly tolerable. After how popular his first trump segment was they just dove off the deep end

God every idiot is parroting this "Wyoming" argument - they never make it with another state - and it's fucking moronic.

>Yeah California has 55 electoral votes which is basically more than all the midwest combined, but hey a vote in Wyoming is equal to 3.6 votes in California so I'm going to pull my campaign out of California and focus on Wyoming

Said no presidential candidate ever.

>Is Joel right?

no

also fuck spics

That has always been the point of the electoral college, large states won't be able to push small states as much.
It's the only reason the United States exists.

no.

>is a constitutional mechanism designed to protect vulnerable politicial minorites from mob tyranny "undemocratic"
>does democracy mean only that the largest group of shitslinging apes gets to make all the decisions solely by virtue of its size
>what is federalism, anyway
Faggots who suffer rectal prolapse from the EC, especially only when their candidates lose, should be fucking gassed.

It's "unfair" because it didn't work in their favor.

The fact that this happened shows that the system is working. No matter how hard they scream in L.A. and NYC, they only get a certain amount of control. And that's a good thing.

It isn't supposed to make people equal.
>California is 1/50th of the states yet has 1/5 of the votes necessary to win the EC
WOOOOOOW SO UNFAIR

actually the house of rep is only 1 in wyoming, joel is a dumbass

A little, yes. But counting only the votes is even more unfair.

This map clearly conveys tellurocracy versus thalassocracy

It's almost as if the system is designed to give every state a say instead of the country being governed solely by nu-males and illegal mexicans in Cali.

kek has spoken

>CA counts for about 1/5 the votes needed to become president
>wahh still not enough we should count for 2/3 the vote
liberals in a nutshell, crying when they can't get their way

Lol. Sanders would have lost.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

why do all these faggots think they're smarter than the Founding Fathers? Kill these commiefornians

Gee I dont know op
Did the person who got the most votes win?

No shit.
If they want to reduce the say of less populous states, why should they not secceed?
Those states have disproportionately higher numbers of those who volunteer for military service and make many times more agricultural products (food) than their populace consumes, as well as natural resources.
Alaska and all of flyover country should vote to force a CA split.
All the red counties becoming 3 new states and leaving the blue counties a single state.
Fuck those faggots.

We can fix the electoral college after you stop letting millions of illegals vote in california

And these butthurt Hillary supporters don't stop for a second to think about how eliminating the electoral college would change how presidential campaigns would work.

No candidate would set foot in the midwest. The votes just aren't there. They'd spend all their time in cities, relying on television appearances to spread their popularity around the country, while doing active campaigning at population centers.

Needing more television appearances and campaign offices in major cities drives up the cost of running a campaign, making them more vulnerable to monied interests.

With a one person one vote system, politicians and celebrities with recognizable names are in a better position to get a popular vote.

Eliminating the electoral college puts presidential campaigns further out of touch with rural areas, brings more large financial interests into politics and makes it easier for candidates to ride to victory on a cult of personality.

The people who are currently bitching about the electoral college were previously bitching about all these things. They're having a knee jerk reaction to losing and aren't thinking at all about what sort of an effect removing the electoral college would have.

R A R E
A
R
E

In the event that nobody gets to 270, the house votes. Guess who a majority house would vote for.

Illegal immigrants count for representation, so California gets more representatives than it should

Fuck California and fuck illegal people.

I thought Liberals loved equality?

>Is the electoral college unfair?

Yes.

But the US isn't a democracy, we're a representative republic.

Each state is TECHNICALLY their own separate country, and the issues between each one differ incredibly. Without the electoral college, they would effectively be silenced by the screams of the masses from the cities.

...

>giving a whole vote to each member of the urban hivemind

Strange nobody complained in 08 and in 2012 funny it's suddenly an issue now. Really firing my neurons.

I can't stand maps like this, that somehow imply land are= actual population.

More to the point, they also seem to imply that all the people in the Red or Blue areas are somehow 100% in agreement with each other. Yet the only thing required for one of the counties on these maps to be red or blue is for 1 more person to vote one way or the other.

Hey let's just give California a third of the electoral votes, that seems fair

JOEL SKYPE

youtu.be/JPA9bKz2meI?t=11s

Wyoming literally has the least amount of electoral votes possible. Fuck liberals.

This

There are less people from Wyoming, but they're getting equal representation. Advocating for a popular vote is akin to advocating for a flat tax. Libcucks are a giant, confusing cloud of contradictions that cannot be reasoned with.

This just makes me want California to succeed so they would fail. Smug bastards

wew lad that's African like corruption

>bernie is popular meme

no. he couldnt even beat hillary. any republican would have destroyed him. democrats support socialists but they don't consider themselves socialist. an open and out socialist would have lost like half his base.

Complained about what? Electoral vote and popular matched in both those elections, shithead.

The electoral college is fair as long as the United States is made up of different states banding together under a federal government.

The argument for the disbandment of the electoral college also necessitates the disbandment of the states and an expansion of the federal government.

technically over 200 years

I thought the left loved affirmative action?

Much bigger problem is that you guys don't fucking vote. How many voted this time? Like around 55% or something?

>if the system was different, the election results would be different!
well no shit

...

don't like the electoral results? campaign better in other states.

>makes me want California to succeed so they would fail

she won popular vote against Obama also. Yet none of the dems said anything. If you go into a game knowing the rules and lose you only have yourself to blame.

they would

The electoral college doesn't solve the issue of majority vs minority, it only pushes it down from a national level to a state level. For it to actually work the way people say it does, each state should split up it's votes depending on how the population of the state voted. Not winner take all.

>muh California vote is worth only 25% of the total, overall vote for the country!
>Wyoming votes only count for 2%!
>The system is rigged against Californians!!!
what a fucking cuck. Winner take all works both ways, you fuggin twat

It's such a stupid argument for a simple reason

You cannot compare voting directly like that precisely because it's an electoral college system

If Wyoming votes translated directly into popular votes then it would make sense.

In reality you're fighting amongst you fellow citizens in your state to get your state to support something nationally.

And then there is the difference in %support.

If 51% of Californians supported clinton and 100% of Wyoming citizens supported trump, the retarded reduction to direct voting numbers would be way different.

In his retard math he takes ALL the popular votes and translates them into the electoral college

If you wanted to do this stupid illogical exercise it would look more like:

Wyoming 174,248 (70%) ÷ 3 = 58,083 people per electoral vote

California 5,589,936 (61%) ÷ 55 = 101,635 people per electoral vote

The effective value of a trump vote in Wyoming is merely ~1.7 times that of an effective clinton vote from California

Of course they take the most populous state and compare to one of the least populous states. Also California should be split.

With Vermont v. Texas for instance, you end up with hillary votes in Vermont being worth more than twice that of trump votes in texas

>California complaining about underrepresentaion
>only the opinions of Californians should matter

They are always in favor of the points system, right up until they lose, then they whine

If it went the other way and Clinton won but Trump had popular vote, you wouldnt hear a fucking thing from any of them

They also hate popular vote when it doesnt go their way, Brexit is a good example

the failure would be astronomical. they do not realize how much America is buffering their shit system even if silicon valley and Hollywood are keeping it afloat single handedly.

>go to city
>put a D next to your name, wave your dick around, and say whites are evil
>secure votes of an entire city of disconnected virtue signaling faggots

>attempt to appeal to rural voters
>have to visit 20 small towns to get the same amount of people

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE THE COLLEGE IS UNFAIR GUIZE
>WHY ARE RURAL FOLK WORTH MORE

Gee, I wonder why.

wat is that real?
the bong system of goverment never fails to blow my mind

People who live in cities are worth less than normal people so it works out.

It's set up this way precisely to prevent large population centers from controlling all of the elections

If it were up to just the popular vote there would literally be no reason to campaign in or appeal to the needs of any of the smaller states at all

Actually, you can plainly see that the map portrayed there has differing shades of red/blue to portray strength of support.

And obviously the red areas tend to have lower population. But that's the point. Political power shouldn't be controlled by a handful of densely-packed cities on the coasts

The whole purpose of the electoral college (and the senate+house that it's based off of) is to give smaller states a slightly higher "weighting" so they don't get completely dominated.

Yup. I realize we get a lot of produce from the central area of the state, but it would be hilarious watching them try to survive without the US while their liberal retards let in millions of mexicans without vetting them. It would be a dumpster fire.

>implying those counties shouldn't have more representation because more people live there
Seems pretty simple to me desu

Honestly speaking, yes.
The electoral college is an archaic system.