"The electoral college is bullshit!", they said

"The electoral college is bullshit!", they said...

Does Alaska have counties or are they just one supercounty?

>6 cities should get to choose the president

>6 cities represent the entirety of the country

The same could be argued about France and many other european countries. The big cities represent like 80% of the population and they are filled with niggers and sandniggers voting left now.

The only real argument for electoral college is that the USA is a federal state and each state is allegedly fairly independant and autonomous.

Educate me, user. If we went by popular vote, excluding illegals, how would the argument be any different?

Just because there are a ton of people massed together in a few geographical locations that all vote left, doesn't mean that the popular vote count isn't legitimate.

I don't understand this logic. It seems like you are saying: "See, the libs have all the people grouped together, we HAVE to have someone else vote against their wishes." Makes no sense.

I am glad Poopoo Lady didn't win. I really am. But the electoral college is retarded. I've yet to see a compelling argument for it, aside from: it kept the left from winning, even though they had the numbers.

>underrepresented people only matter when they aren't white.

>The majority only matters when it's not white

The counties that Trump won represent 80% of the land mass.

The counties that Clinton won, contain 70% of the population.

Corn shouldn't be the deciding factor in elections.

Different locales; different values. Why should the people in a few cities, whom value socialism to its extreme, represent the whole of a country?

cities are literally human cancer

Maybe because the people in the few cities are nearly the entire county?

Why should a tiny minority represent the whole country?

Why not? How else will you keep the people fed, faggot?

I agree, but why then should the electoral college go against the masses in the large cities?

None of it makes sense with a country as large as ours. I wouldn't mind California, Texas, New England, Appalachia, and Heartland all breaking apart. At least they can hate the other sections of the us and partially agree on who they are voting for.

City States when

what the fuck are you talking about?

EC votes are distributed via population, with a minimum of 3.

I know this is bait but why do people intentionally misunderstand the EC? It's a fundamental part of your republic and is older than the bill of rights.

Because you only care about the minority when it's not white.

If the majority was against socialism and nigger shit, you'd be here sitting crying about support for the electoral.

>people who produce all of USA's resources should be ignored because more people with useless jobs live in cities.

I'd rather not make a new thread about this, but does Hillary's campaign give back the donations now? or do they go to """"" charity """""

Because the only president in the last 40 years to represent the urban areas was Bill Clinton, and this under representation has led to major issues in the cities notably with gun violence and limited access to reproductive health for women.

It's a huge issue.

It makes sense if you consider the US as an exceptional federated state. The electoral college allows for each state to maintain some sovereignty instead of erasing them, throwing everyone in the same bag in favor of a unified classic state where geographical disparacies are secondary.

What is bullshit with the current system is the 'winner takes all' thing. Each state should provide electors acording to the popular vote.

BECAUSE THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THE MAJORITY WHEN IT'S NOT WHITE PEOPLE.

This shit is just another race issue.

Fuckin niggers and libtards crying about what the majority wants until the majority decides to not support them, THEN oh no us minorities aren't equally represented.

It's bullshit.

>EC votes are distributed via population, with a minimum of 3.

Yes, and the more people a state has, the fewer EC votes each person gets.

If California had the same number of EC votes per person that Wyoming gets, California would have 197 votes.

Or split up the US into 4-6 Confederacies

Would the US really benefit from being splitted further?

This triggerred me.

Does NYC just not vote or something? They're by far and away the largest city in the country, but even looking at representation of individual boroughs that seems pitifully small.

because a farmer has different needs/expectations of the government than an urbanite, and both should have a say in how the federal government is ran.

The popular vote argument is essentially a declaration of slavery on a vast majority of the country.

the few cities can run themselves how they want, they dont need the federal government to force their values on everyone else.

>major issues in the cities notably with gun violence and limited access to reproductive health for women.


why havent the local governments dealt with this shit? they have a bigger GDP then most of the world, its stupid that they need the federal government to deal with that.

Because otherwise there is literally no reason for any State except for NY, NJ, CA, and IL to remain in the Union.

how about..............50?

these usless industry, tec, art and finance jobs. Its like you want the US to be a peasant state like poland was

Great post, friend.

I'm not sure what your point is, but you math is spot on.

now 3 states decides who is gonna be president every sinlge election...

I was just arguing this point the other day. City-states honestly make a lot of sense. Modern urban populations have almost literally nothing in common with rural/small town populations. By letting cities like Chicago, New York, etc. have greater control over themselves with no control over the surrounding lands, all people would be much happier.

Practically every single value or viewpoint one can hold is the opposite depending on whether that person lives in a city or not.

There's an easier way. Simply assign one Elector to each Congressional District with the other two At Large. Problem solved.

If Alaska had a lot of counties like the rest of the country, they would have dozens without anyone living in them.

They opted out of the system, this round. It's that higher average IQ of theirs. Compare that to the < 90 average of LA

Crazy idea: why not let some of the blue stuff become independent and freely chose their own leaders.
South California, Detroit, Seattle, the blue West Coast, while keeping as much red areas as possible.

And by "independent" I mean states that are technically independent but in reality they would be vassals of the still powerful US.
They would be dependent economically on the US and wouldn't be able to influence US politics anymore.
Meanwhile the US would be more homogeneous politically.

most of them are in retail and other jobs that are trash and will be automated the second they raise a min wage

Ya dont fuck with the people who grow your food, bud.

>reproductive health

You just mean abortions? That is the only thing that is meant when someone says "women's health." Any other "women's health," procedures/checkups can be be preformed at any local OBGYN.

not true. last election florida and colorado were big focuses, this year Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were the deciding factors.

and btw, if places like Cali and Texas ever suddenly flipped, they would be huge. They're just not hugely relevant because of how consistent they vote. that doesnt mean they dont matter though. democrats get a huge advantage from cali and new york, while republicans benefit from texas. if the popular vote happened, it would never matter what a majority of the country did, because those few states would always decide everything. its not the same at all.

Yesssss! I have been arguing this for years now, it makes much more sense.

Also, I love state's rights but this whole bullshit about how each state makes up their own rules on how to assign electors for a FEDERAL election is ridiculous.

Is "At Large" Mean they are free to choose?

Well the fact that States make their own rules IS in the Constitution but I'd be in favor of changing that. I live in PA. With this year being the notable exception I fucking HATE the fact Pittsburgh and Philadelphia essentially cancel out my vote.

Infaliable.
Virginia already does it at the state level.

No, it means that they will be based on popular vote of the entire state. Like how each state has districts where house representatives are chosen but the senators depend on the vote of the whole state.

No. I would think they vote the State majority. That way States still get a vote, along with the People. Consider it yet another layer in the system of Checks and Balances.

>Independent cities

I had no idea of this, what does this mean? How much control do the cities have over themselves?

I seriously don't understand the life of me why some people can't grasp the necessity of the Electoral College.
It's very logical to be honest, letting like 3 - 4 out of 50 states control who becomes the president is obviously stupid.

>I had no idea of this, what does this mean? How much control do the cities have over themselves?
All of it. They're essentially just counties.

Depends on the City and State. Some have provisions for Home Rule, others do not.

Elimination of the EC is a recipe for civil disorder, if not outright secession and civil war.

Sure does, user.

>Minimum of 3

Each borough of NYC is its own county. So instead of one big spike you see 5 contiguous smaller spikes.

Sub humans tend to swarm in dirty claustrophobic cities.

holy fuck, look at those names. it's like and skimo being raped by anime

Yes a minority of bumbfuck hillbillys who by the way with the exception of the state of texas take more in from federal dollars then they give in should have MORE of a say then people in the cities.

Most of the GDP and production happens in cities, and most people live in cities because unlike the sticks there is actually stuff worth living there for, i.e Jobs, industry, and cultural centers. As in if you have any aspirations to making higher income you generally live in the city or the surrounding suburbs. Then again it is a free country so your more then welcome to live in meth addeled bumbfuck nowhere.

Of course you can blame libs for shipping jobs overseas and killing already dying industries like coal mining when its so easy to be swayed from the real culprits. I'm sure Trump is really going to bring back those jobs and industries like coal and manufacturing despite external market factors and automation.

>
>6 cities that should be targeted for termination...

Oh so minorities only matter when they aren't white huh?

You argument does hold water, except people like you cry like a bitch when the majority works against you.