Dear americans, doesnt it bother you at all that your president

>>738367593
Thats an awesome pic because the Mona Lisa is cool because you can't tell if she's smiling or not, and p diddy did the same thing!

File: 1499570798909.jpg (44KB, 519x570px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 519x570px

Yes we should listen to a system that only favors large cities on the coast
>florida
>new york
>california
>Texas
>Colorado

Oh gee look at that only 5/50 states on this list. If only an electoral system could make this not happen.

>>738367593
How is that different than a parliamentary system where regional representation means the party in charge may receive fewer votes total? If some britbong MP is elected with 80% of the vote and another is elected with 50.1%, they each get the same power to vote for the PM.

>>738367593
It's set up that way to prevent tyranny of the majority jackass

File: franku srs.png (87KB, 251x252px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 251x252px

>>738368127
"tyranny of the majority"
that's a fancy way to spell democrathy

File: shewon.png (136KB, 389x476px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 389x476px

>>738367593
Little known fact: Obama got fewer votes in 2008 primaries than Clinton, so he became the nominee without even having the majority of people in his party on his side.

Immensely.

>>738368412
Democracy=51% control the other 49%

>>738367593
Nope.

If it was majority vote, Los Angeles and New York alone would determine the winner. How practical is that? What does some liberal have in common with most of America?

File: come on.png (635KB, 841x889px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 841x889px

>>738368672
Please tell me that doesn't sound better than 49% control the other 51%.
I mean your two party system is something i didn't even adress here, it's shit, but in the end off topic.

File: 1499605588245-pol.jpg (55KB, 1024x803px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x803px

>>738367593
No, the braindead mass who don't pay attention to the real world don't know what's best for their nation.

Sincerely an Electoral Electorate.

>>738368018
Stop with this made up horseshit. The electoral college is not about big cities. It's about how you counted slaves without allowing them to vote. The three-fifths compromise wouldn't have work with a popular vote.

>>738368804

This. If we went with OP's way, just 2 or 3 states would decide everything and the rest of the country wouldn't even have a voice.

>>738369000
Trips of truth up in here.

>>738368804
>with most of America
What do you think the majorety of votes have to do with the majorety of voters in America? Think. Think hard.
Please try to forget for a minute how republicans won this time because of this, but think of it the other way around - wouldn't you be PISSED?

>>738368127

So the minority should control the majority? Okay.

>>738368018
>including Colorado
Literally why? Minnesota has more delegates.
>thinking florida hasn't decided every election since the 90s
Literally retarded. Whoever wins Florida wins the presidency.

>>738368804
NY and LA combined: 12 million people
Everywhere else: 305 million

Are you a fucking moron?

File: dodging the question.jpg (31KB, 620x632px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 620x632px

>>738369018
So you're saying that you consider it fair that person A's vote is worth more than person B's vote. In a democratic sense...

>>738369018

>2 or 3 started would decide everything

This thinking needs to die.

It's all one fucking country. It's not 2 or 3 started deciding anything. It's a bunch of people in a country that outnumber the other people in that same country that get to decide how the same country goes.

It's not 50 states, it's one fucking country.

>>738367593
It bothers some of us, who do not understand the way our government is set up.

We do not have a national election for President, we have a series of elections where each of the states, and DC, select which candidate they will support.

We are a union of a lot of states, not one unitary state.

But yeah, a lot of us do not understand this, and get butthurt when the system does what it is supposed to do.

>>738368804
>>738369018
>he doesn't know Florida has decided every election for 20 years
Retard alert. Why should a bunch of jews and Cubans decide who leads the country???

>>738369000
Na fam, it was because at that time the vast majority of the populace was uneducated so nobody wanted the outcome of our rulers left to knuckle heads.

>>738368127
but if the majority want tyranny they should be allowed to have it

>>738368412
Essentially, yes.

The US is not a direct democracy, by design.

Did you not understand that?

File: 1494982494800.png (177KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x512px

>>738367593
*YAWN*

Hillary lost. The rules have not changed since we created them in the 1700s. Get over it. "Move On".

File: not asking for it.jpg (207KB, 1846x1212px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1846x1212px

>>738369406
So from an american perspective: you consider yourself less an us-american than a member of your own state - is that somewhat correct?

Literally every Republicunt argument ever:
"No, U! That's a lie! We have our own facts!"

fucking delusional fascist twats

>>738367593
Not at all. Because the presidency is decided by the majority of the states. It would bother me more if a handful of cities could decide every election just because they're extremely densely populated.
Think of it like a series of games. Basketball, football, whatever. One team wins eight out ten games by a modest margin of points, but loses the other two games by over 200 points each. Even though the other team, because of those two losses, has a higher number of total points in the series, the other team still won 8 out of 10 games. That's basially what happened; a few highly densely populated areas voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, but Trump won all the other contests.

>>738369267
Colorado is the fastest developing state in the union. Other fag lib states follow their opinion

>>738369426

>Vast majority are retards

And nothing has changed. And we're run by retards. Everything can't work properly because we're fucking retarded and it will never change.

>>738369406
Please explain why a voter from Wyoming's vote is worth the same as 4 Texan voters.

>>738369299
when has that ever not been true
If you live in Faggot City and 80% vote for some liberal champion, and someone in Nebraska in the GOP wins a seat in Congress by 200 votes, they each have the same vote in Congress.

>>738369406
yes, i get the legals of it, but don't you find that the spirit of it is kind of twisted?

File: 1499165170636.jpg (66KB, 500x644px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x644px

>>738368439
That's a it dumb, though. Since he different states use different methods to select delegates to the nominating conventions, you can't really total up a national popular vote total for the primaries.

Some states use primaries to directly allocate delegates. some use caucuses, some state conventions, some a combination.

>>738369536
I don't care about Hillary, i'm not even american. The thing that bothers me is that Trump actually adressed the electoral college to be bullshit, but then won through it. It would have been consequent to try to get rid of it which he of course doesn't do.

File: 2016nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.png (112KB, 720x456px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 720x456px

>>738367593

seems to be working pretty good from where im sittin

>>738369299
Not how it works. Everyone gets one vote.
But New York and Oregon are separate states and the President is decided by who wins the most states. Leftover votes from California do not apply in South Carolina.

>>738369557
anyone who considers his identity primarily as one in 330 million is a twat

>>738369602
I expected that reply and yeah I guess but isn't that what every normie fuck says? "everyone's dumb but me and my friends lol"

I prefer that the majority doesn't decide. We live in a republic, not a democracy, for a reason. I don't particularly like the circus of odd factors that make our republic but it's definitely still better than a direct democracy for a country of our size and diversity.

File: 1494167582685.jpg (57KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x400px

>>738369482
This is not at all how the US government works. It's a republic, which means the right of the individual is valued over the right of society/the majority.

>>738367593
>democratic republic
>get over it
>get over yourself
>/thread

>>738369563
fascism = grow the state
GOP = shrink the state
you = suck the cock

>>738369737
that because you are a fucking retard.

>>738369000
I don't think that's true, please cite your sources.
It actually makes more sense if you treat America like what it was originally meant to be. A somewhat loose confederation of largely independent states with a minimal central government. With that in mind, the electoral system makes more sense than a direct system.

>>738367593

I don't give a fuck about your question...

A gangsta nigger (note the 'golden' chain) does a selfie with the Mona Lisa painting.

He seems lost. ' what the fuck am i doing here'

what the fuck

>>738369582
>Colorado is one of the fastest developing states
Could that have anything to do with cannabis tourism and the tax revenues generated through such ventures?

>>738369405
>It's not 50 states, it's one fucking country.
But that's wrong. You night WISH it were right, but wishing don't make it so.

>>738367593
ef

>>738369727
My only point was that the liberal hysterics who say the person who gets the most votes should win were fine with Obama being nominated with fewer votes. It's not them objecting on principle. They're just mad they lost.

File: 43253231.gif (1MB, 223x176px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 223x176px

>>738367593
Dear retarded foreigner,
Do you know more than half of the US doesn't even participate in our elections?

>>738369405
When California doesn't feel like another planet to a Texan, then I'll agree with you. Until that day, we aren't one country. We are one union of independent states.

>>738369666
>"when has that ever not been true"
That doesn't mean it's not shit and shouldn't be questioned and maybe changed.
>If you live in Faggot City and 80% vote for some liberal champion
Well this is another problem mostly stemming from the only two parties you have. Of course the big ones won't get into efforts allowing smaller parties to participate because in the end that would only damage them.

>>738369911
This. Texas has been one of the fastest for a good long while now. Wheres the weed there?

The people who are attacking the Electoral College process ~after they lose~ are the same ones who hold elitist views about the everyday people in the central states. The places they refer to as "flyover country". They honestly believe those people should not have a voice in their own government. They believe only the bastions of liberalism.... NY city, Los Angeles, etc... should decide who our leaders are.

We HAVE the Electoral process exactly because such people exist.

>>738367593
rule by the masses is rule by the ignorant

>>738369860

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydx8C5eMH4I

>>738370003
Texas here, went to Cali for the spring. My sister asked for a sweet tea and they didn't know what the fuck was going on, fires erupted in the restaurant.

>>738367593
Personally I don't give a fuck.

Fuck life.

File: hide the pain.jpg (37KB, 365x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 365x450px

>>738369773
That would explain why your vote system is the way it is, maybe this leads to me getting remotely close to understanding what the hell is going on in your heads.

>>738369737
Nice popation density map, faggot.

>>738369726
Not him, but no. The country wouldn't have lasted this long if the sovereignty of the states wasn't protected. Also no one forces those people to huddle up in California. If you want to look at it as "my vote counts less here than if I moved there" then move there instead of just whining about not being able to change the rules when you lose.

>>738369764
One vote in Wyoming is worth 4 votes in Texas though, faggot.

>>738367593
were the united states not the united people

>>738369982
I understand the frustration of many voters because they know their votes will go to shit. This mostly comes from you only having two parties. If your election system allowed parties under 50% to participate in politics you could have a much larger bandwidth and people living who never voted because "my vote won't win against those 80% in my state" might be tempted to participate.

File: act_cool.jpg (126KB, 662x854px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 662x854px

>>738370071
So by extension you want a dictator - right?

>>738369000
Horseshit, yourself. The debate was between having Congress vote to elect the president, and having delegates from each state vote for president (i.e. the electoral college). Direct democracy was never even considered, because it wasn't practical in the 18th century.

>>738369267
>>738369267
I think He's saying those states would decide the election if it was based on popular vote.

Popular vote is retarded.

>>738370282
No it isn't. One vote in Wyoming doesn't mean anything in Texas. And why should it? You don't live in Wyoming, what gives you the right to influence an election there?

>>738367593
No.
Democracy alone is tyranny of the majority.
Example: two foxes and a chicken voting on what's for dinner.
Countries with true democracies are dangerous and even hostile towards the minority.

>>738369865
>cite your sources
Check the constitution, faggot. The 3/5 compromise was created to give southern states more representation.

>>738367593
nope, we got to have some way of making niggers and spics think they have a say.

>>738370373
Your vote means shit because there are 325 million people in the U.S.

>>738367593
Not really. Now answer my question, what the fuck are you doing outside of your tribal hut? go back to africa you nigger. I don't see any watermelon near the Mona Lisa and we don't need an obama in Europe. Go fuck yourself.
~Sincerely Your 'Massah'

>>738369889
Dude that's P Diddy. Pretty sure that's a real gold chain

>>738367593
As long as I can play on my Xbox, I really don't give a fuck.

File: Confused Carlton Banks.png (783KB, 802x523px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 802x523px

>>738370600
Well, not everyone understands what a wonderful thing democrathy is.

>>738367593
Not at all. If you read Federalist No. 10, you can see some pretty solid theory on why a direct democracy is a recipe for tyranny of the masses. I'd rather live in a Constitutional Republic that is set up to protect the individual from both the masses and the government.

Honestly, you should educate yourself a little bit about government forms before you come spouting idiocy of the masses at people who just might have more of a grasp on shit than you.

But hey, I get it, you're probably somewhere between 15 and 25 and think you understand the world and have it all figured out. Don't worry OP, as you get older you will realize just how much you do not know. Only when you do realize how little you know, will you actually start working on educating yourself on topics that you know nothing about.

>>738370282
No. One vote in Wyoming is worth one vote in Wyoming. One vote in Texas is worth one vote in Texas. They are separate states, separate contests.
Do you complain about touchdowns being worth seven homeruns? Of course not, because that's a retarded way of comparing two separate competitions. If you think your opinion would be more valuable in Wyoming, then move there.

File: 1499290494861.jpg (54KB, 483x800px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 483x800px

>>738367593
Because according to the 2010 census: 80% of our population lives in an urban area, wich comprises 3.5% of the total land. The other 20% of our population that lives in our rural areas completely supports the country. I live in Center City Philadelphia; I don't know how to run a cattle ranch in Nebraska or a wheat farm in Kansas, and I certainly don't know what is best for the people that do live there and do produce the food that allows me to live in my urban paradise.

>>738370536
You're moving goalposts. Of course that's what the 3/5th compromise was about, but that's not what you were claiming. You're claiming it's why there's an electoral college instead of direct democracy, which is blatantly false. The Founding Fathers never seriously argued for direct democracy. It was either Congress votes for President, or delegates from the states vote for President. Either of which would have allowed the 3/5th compromise.

>>738370536
No it wasn't. It was created as an effort by northern states to prevent southern states from using farm equipment to increase their power. The argument was that if slaves weren't gonna be treated like people, why should we count them as people? Yes, it gave slaveholders a controlling interest for a long time. But it was far better than any of the possible alternatives. And what does it have to do with the electoral college? It had already been agree upon. How would the three fifths compromise determine something that already existed?

>>738370738
It's a republic, not a democracy

>>738369808
so why do i have to wear seatbelts

>>738367593
Says people...posts ape

>>738371054
Because you hate that dinging sound

>>738370782
Oh, i didn't pretend to know jackshit, that's the wonderful thing about 4chan. Given a topic threads have an own dynamic which is pretty much out of my hand.
Anyways, I don't even want to know how it all works, i want to know opinions of americans and how they feel about it because i think it sounds like horse shit.
Given that most people on here don't have an exact idea about politics aswell it's a good ground to have a less formal discussion.

>>738369557
Not less -- but I'm both, and i understand our system is set up as a union of states. Like I say, this bugs the shit out of many of us, especially those who do not understand how the government is organized.

>>738370470
You're retarded, do a little math faggot
>Wyoming population: 586,000
>Wyoming delegates: 3
>Wyoming voters per delegate: 195,000

>Texas population: 27.47 million
>Texas delegates: 38
>Texas voters per delegate: 722,000

Unless you are mathematically illiterate, you can see there's a problem here.

>>738371054
Because the 16th amendment and the Warren Court pretty much destroyed the idea of states rights and limited government in the U.S.

File: JUICCEEY.jpg (6KB, 200x251px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x251px

>>738371008
Whatever, if you vote for your boss and your vote even theoretically has some sort of impact on who is boss you live in a democrathy in my book.

File: IMG_3253.jpg (69KB, 605x605px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 605x605px

>>738369564
From my understanding, the electoral college is done by votes within districts of a state. The party with most districts wins the state. So, if you live within a district where the majority of citizens are registered democrats and you vote republican or vice versa how does your even count? Also, voter turnout is an issue. About 60% of eligible voters actually voted.

>>738371054
Because it saves the insurance companies money, and they have lobbyists. Also reducing the number of annual injuries from auto accidents relieves the burden on the health care industry (and, by extension, the health insurance industry's profit margin).

>>738370461
Not true at all. This is a gigantic country, the votes of 1 or 2 cities wouldn't be enough to sway any election either way.

Besides, Florida decides every fucking election anyway.

>>738367593

Hillary still lost, snowflake. The Framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. So fuck you, fuck every Jew that cheated to get Clinton nominated and elected, fuck Clinton with a borrowed dick, fuck her lesbian pal Huma, fuck her ugly kid fathered with Web Hubbell. TRUMP 2020

>>738371164
LOLOL

>>738369664
I could explain it to you, again, but I can't understand it for you.

>>738367593
Not really. The majority of Americans are idiots.

It's saved us in a couple of elections.

>>738371268
so its not really about the individuals rights

>>738367593
No. It's done that way deliberately to ensure an alliance of a few states with large populations cannot hijack the entire country.

>>738369140
I meant to say "some liberal in NY", but you're a faggot and could have figured that out yourself but didn't because you're a faggot.

>>738370615
P Diddy has more money than you could ever dream of having, but stay jealous faggot.

>>738371323
OP here - this discussion really isn't about Hillary or Trump for once, but your perception of your own voting system.

>>738371213
I see the math, but you're thinking about it wrong. Wyoming and Texas are independent actors in a union of states. Wyoming votes are only worth anything in Wyoming.

>>738371404
how does this make sense. if the majority want it, then the majority wants it. if theres 100 people in 3 towns and then a small town of 10, why should they count for more then 10 people?

>>738369737

But we don't elect by acreage. Or total popular vote nationally. Both are irrelevant.

File: can't tell if gay or not.png (124KB, 368x309px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 368x309px

>>738371444
Oh please, i'm not gay.

>>738371213
>there's a problem here.
Yes, there is. You mad jelly of Wyoming.
That's not a problem for *me*, of course, only for you. So forgive me if I don't give a fuck about why you give a fuck about Wyoming.

What happens if a close election is contested?

In a direct democracy, you'd have to count every single vote again, which is a huge investment of time and resources.

With the electoral college, it's broken into chunks. So you only have to do recounts in states that are near the tipping point, and specifically in those counties in those states that are right on the edge. It's why the 2000 election was resolved fairly quickly -- only a small part of Florida needed to be recounted. Not 3000+ counties.

>>738369972
And there's also Repubs in this thread who are objecting not on principle but on party affiliations. Repubs like to shout, "tyranny of the majority" but are perfectly fine with tyranny of a slight minority when it suits them

>>738369140

No I wouldn't be pissed, it's our system and it works. We're not a democracy.

>>738371249
Then you don't know what words mean

>>738371168
Gotcha. I'll boil it down to a simple few statements then.

In a direct democracy, if over 50% of the population votes that it's legal to kill anyone named Bob, then it becomes legal to kill anyone named Bob. That can go for literally anything. Then all they need to do is convince the majority that it's good for them to take away your rights. You could lose your basic human rights (right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery etc), not just the rights given by your government (Religion, speech, press ect in the US). Since people tend to be stupid, especially in large groups, the founders of the US set it up so that it would be harder to fall into that tyranny.

It was a very common topic among the founders of the US. Madison covered it pretty well in Federalist No. 10 which is why I recommended it, but most of the signers of the US Declaration of Independence had something to say about it and published something about it.

I would definitely not want to live in a world where if everyone in the room voted that it's OK to torture you to death then you would have no protection against it.

>>738370856
See
>>738371213

And enough with the sports analogies. They do not correlate to what we are talking about. Imagine if a touchdown scored by a Patriots player was worth 16 points. This is a more accurate analogy

>>738371512
Because we're broken up into sovereign states. We're a *Federal* Republic. Your analogy of municipalities fails.

>>738369972
By a twist of fate, the last few times the popular and electoral vote have not coincided, they were on the losing end. I can see why they might start to feel picked on.

To complete the picture, they need to succeed in getting the electoral college removed, then lose an election they would have won had t still been in place.

The rage would be wonderful.

>>738371502
Dumbass, the results of the 2 separate contests are relevant on a national scale.

>>738371716
well if your such a faggot 50% of the population decided to kill you bob, then so be it

>>738371692
It's pretty bad on both sides of the aisle. But there are a lot of people in this thread who clearly have some basic understanding of American history and how the political system works, so I really doubt they're stupid enough to either be Republicans or Democrats.

>>738371705
At least not in the direct sense.

>>738371621
Found a mathematically illiterate retard

>>738371805
so your votes worth more or less depending the state your in.

>>738367593
Do you know how the American election works? Electoral votes, look it up.

>>738371753
Lousy analogy is lousy.
A better analogy would be that a patriots touchdown is worth 16 points, but they only get 1/3 of the players. Do you see the point yet?

ITT: Antifa queers who defend the New World Order and think they're for the people.

>>738369000
Historical revisionism of the worst kind.

>>738371716
Well how about alternatively installing a basic set of rules like the right not to be killed if your name is bob which would require a majorety of ... let's say 80% to change?
Everything else should be up to the 51% to change - at least that's my opinion.

>>738371810
Less twist of fate and more demographics and how the system is set up. It was deliberately set up to give smaller (population) states more representation at the federal level, and the rural low-population states are dominated by Republicans.

>>738371823
Yes they do. But why should California's excess votes impact election results in Delaware?

>>738371232
what does federal income tax have to do with traffic laws (which are created by individual states)?

The whole point of the Electorial college is so the people, whom can be idiots don't elect someone bad. So, they elect someone to vote for them, hence "winning states". If it were popular vote than it would be Texas versus Californa eliminating every other state's vote

>>738367593

All niggers should be slaughtered.

>>738371374
You haven't explained anything. I proved using simple mathematics that the electoral college unfairly favors rural states. You haven't responded to my rational thinking, presumably because you are unable.

>>738371991
Then you're an idiot, because you just threw out the Bill of Rights and the idea of natural human rights.

File: jaden-smith-1.jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>738371706
uhhhhh

>>738370012
>efforts allowing smaller parties to participate

Any such effort would be futile s long as we have a first-past-the-post majority-of-votes-wins (electoral or popular) as having three or more parties vying for votes under that system means, too often, nobody wins and you need a fallback method, even more divorced from the voters, to make the pick.

The easier solution would be for more of us who care to get back into the parties, participate in primaries and state/local conventions, and make them less retarded.

File: 1499611848494.png (130KB, 536x593px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 536x593px

>>738367593

>>738371837
Not Bob, and you are a prime example on why the government is set up that way. You would be very easy to sway towards a vote that would strip people of their rights. You are the type that they are protecting against.

Thank you for exemplifying my point so well.

>>738372041
Oh yeah, and Maine and Nebraska split up the delegates vote for vote instead of all-or-nothing the other states use

>>738372041
It's never worked like that, though. While the Founding Fathers set it up so the electors could say fuck the people and vote how they wanted if the people were stupid, contrary votes are rare and have never been a factor in a presidential election.

>>738370282
Then move.

>>738372139
Yes, he's pretty stupid too

>>738371882
Yes. Each state's standing in the electoral college is equal to its Congressional representation. 2 (for senators) + X (# of Representatives).

If 15 million people in California vote for Candidate A and only 14 million for Candidate B, then A gets all of California's electoral votes. If all 29 million votes in California are for candidate A, candidate A still only gets California's electoral votes; California's individuals' votes don't carry over to cancel out any other state's individuals.

A handful of states split their votes representatively, but most commit them in a winner-take-all system.

>>738371917
Wrong. I suppose simple mathematics is too much for you. I suggest suicide.

>>738372066
No you didn't. He clearly explained why things work that way, and why the system makes sense. Once again, what gives Texas the right to have a controlling interest in the elections in Wyoming?

>>738372301
lol

>>738368672
Not strictly true. You are describing a simple majority. Democracy does not require a majority at all, only that the franchise is extended to "the people" however that might be defined.

>>738372088
Maybe i have, [in my opinion] a state should reflect what his people want, even if that means sometimes pissing off others. You should understand that as an american.

>>738371267
Pretty close. Most states are winner-takes-all, but some states divide their electors according to the popular vote in that state. It's up to the individual states to decide how they distribute their delegates.
>how does your even count?
It's a vote on the losing side. That doesn't mean it doesn't count, it just means your side lost. Take the Obama elections, for example:
In 2008, I voted for Obama. But my state, SC, voted for the other guy. Obama still won, but technically my vote was not part of that victory even though my candidate won overall. In 2012 I didn't bother voting because I was pretty sure SC was going to vote for Romney but Obama would still win the election and I was right. In 2016 I didn't bother voting because I didn't think Trump would actually win, that he was just the boogey-man who was there to make sure everyone voted for Clinton. I regret that now, because SC did vote in favor of Trump and my vote, again, was not part of the victory even though my candidate won. It did restore my faith in the vote being relevant, though. I'd previously looked at the whole election as being akin to selecting a flavor out of a soda vending machine: you get to make your choice but they all come from the same machine. But Trump did not have the support of the insiders and career politicians even in his own party, it was purely voter support that put him in the race and in the office.

>>738370055
You know, there are actually people on the coasts who used to live in the heartland but they left because it was overall shit.

>higher obesity rates
>smaller state economies
>dying production industry
>obsolete infrastructure

Not to mention an incredibly large sample of the population being elderly, out of touch hicks who categorically vote (R) even through the party makes their life a living hell by gutting programs that they rely on. Their only source of News is Fox, and theyre too incompetent to either look up or understand what's going on in the House and Senate to see how badly they're getting fucked.

>>738372024
Because then leaders are elected with only a minority of the people supporting them! Thats what this entire thread is about you worm.

>>738371991
We do have those sets of laws in the Constitution. But if you set things up to an 80% change, that is not a Direct Democracy. Now you are moving closer to how we have it set up. Many things in the US government requires more than a simple majority (over 50%) but a supermajority. And we require some things to go through both processes and even more. Besides, if they can convince 81% of the population that it's OK to reinstate slavery, then we have a shitty situation. If we hold that all humans are born with equal rights, then we cannot have any system in place where we can violate that, no matter how high the vote for tyranny is.

>>738372335
If Wyoming has greater parity in its votes, that means the minority is capable of electing leaders who preside over the majority. That's what the entire thread is about, you retard.

File: 1499635319638.jpg (97KB, 680x709px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 680x709px

>>738367593

>>738372387
You're the one who doesn't understand what it means to be an American. This country was founded one two key principles:

1. People have representation in the government
2. Limited government

And the founding fathers worked at lot harder on #2 than #1. It's not just the Bill of Rights, it's also why state right exists, why we have 3 separate governments with checks and balances, and so on. It's 90% of the Constitution.

>>738372691
> 3 separate branches

File: TSA 1484274301099.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

>>738369808
It looks like no one in Washington DC got your memo.

>>738371213
Without agreeing with your premise, may I quibble with your word choices?

Electors are not delegates. In American politics, delegates are chosen to attend the national conventions of the parties to nominate a party's candidates., write platform, etc.

It seems a minor quibble, but I wasted way too much time during the recent primaries trying to explain to morons that kept blaming the electoral college system for the fact that their candidate was losing at convention that I'm going to try and get in preemptively with an explanation before the next round of primaries and caucuses.

>>738369820
>GOP = shrink the state
Every Repubican administration from Nixon onward has arrogated rights to the federal government that used to belong to the states. Remember the national 55mph speed limit?

>>738372152
Well where i live we have 5-6 notable parties with quiet differenciated politics who often form alliances over a term. If that was the case in the usa, and all your votes would be pooled you'd suddenly have more than only two parties. The two parties would actually be forced to try to be votable.

>>738372262
>the system is broken, we should fix it
>nah, just exploit the system
What are you, a nigger?

>>738372226
>contrary votes are rare
iirc the 2016 election actually had the highest number of faithless electors of any presidential election. Clintards were hoping that enough electors would jump ship to swing the vote in Hillary's favor, but she actually had ten votes swing away from her. Some of them even voted for Colin Powell, who wasn't even running (but he should have been).

>>738372436
HAHAHAHA!

>I'm better than you, nyah!

Little boy... the reproduction rate of your 'coastal elites' is way, waaay below replacement level. Your assertion that the hicks are all old and dying out is a straight up lie because they, get this, actually have babies.

Connecticut. Hawaii. Illinois. Massachusetts. California.

What are these? Democratic strongholds, but also states whose finances are almost bankrupt. Illinois especially, though the others are looking pretty terrible as well. Because they refuse to "gut programs" and run on borrowed money for generations.

>only source of news is Fox

An especially stupid lie. Have you even *heard* of cable bundling?

You are woefully ignorant, but somehow managed to convince yourself that you're wise and brilliant and better than everyone who isn't like you. Just kill yourself.

>>738372458
But with the overwhelming majority of the states supporting them. What gives California the right to enforce political will over Montana, Wyoming etc? The only reason you care is that your guy lost. The electoral system allows the votes of the smaller states to actually matter. It prevents the big states from steamrolling the will of the people in little states while allowing them to also have a larger impact on the election.

>>738370003
…with McDonalds and Starbucks for all.

>>738372988
Yep, it was quite ironic.

But hopefully it's not a trend. Faithless electors are a bad thing.

>>738372802
Thanks for the info anon. It should have been
>Wyoming voters per elector

Right?

>>738373114
>It prevents the big states from steamrolling the will of the people in little states
But the people in the little states don't agree with me, so their votes shouldn't matter.

>>738372691
Hmm intresting, you have a much different idea of how participation and politics should be like. You seem to see it as a nuicance rather than a blessing. You want a weak government with little place to move because you figured out that you've already found a good version - is that somewhat correct?

>>738367593
When you exclude all the illegals who voted he won the popular also.

>>738371859
If you are not in one of the major parties, in many states you cannot vote in their primaries (for President, Congress, City Council, Sherriff, Dog Catcher) -- which means, in the general election, where almost always the winner will be the nominee of one of the two parties, you have no real choice but the nominee of the one party or the other.

In primary elections, where the eventual winners are chosen, the turnout is usually smaller and the efforts of one person (by voting or doing a little election volunteering) are more likely to have a result.

Not being in either party means you are content to let us pick your elected officials for you.

But yeah, WE'RE the stupid ones.

>>738373114
>what gives California the right to enforce political will over Montana or Wyoming?
What gives Montana and Wyoming to exert political power over California? In an attempt to spread political power into more hands, our founding fathers inadvertently handed smaller states all the power, as I clearly demonstrated using simple math.

File: democracy 1494192662840.jpg (108KB, 500x588px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x588px

>>738371008
They're not mutually exclusive. The federalists intended the US to be both. Didn't work out that way, though.

>>738373316
Not at all. I think the government sucks, and definitely needs to be improved. And I don't necessarily want a weak government, either.

I just think people are important, so I support individual rights. Which seems to be a rare position, these days.

>>738373889
The only examples of direct democracy in the U.S. are ballot initiatives.

>>738372066
You have "proved" what is not being argued -- that the EC gives a bit more voice to smaller states, on a per-capita basis.
I am not sure you can prove "unfairness" with mathematics -- fairness is not a mathematical concept.

The system is designed to be a union of individual states, not a single unitary state. As such things like national elections are largely influenced by population -- but not totally, to prevent the voices of the smaller states from being drowned out.

There, explained it to you again.

If you still can't understand it, that's on you.

Note: You don't have to agree with the goal to understand what it is. Whether you agree with the way the several states agreed to come together in a union is not a question that I am going to lose a lot of sleep over.

File: sweet.gif (424KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 267x200px

>>738373990
Thanks for your input m8, was fun.
/heading to sleep now

>>738373860
It wasn't inadvertent, and it wasn't all the power. California still has more voting power than any other state, it's just per capita their influence in the presidential election is less. And that was quite deliberate.

>>738374300
Night, anon

>>738372963
Sure.

All I was saying is that you can't just pass laws to "give third parties more access" which many here seem to think would mean something. It wouldn't, unless we also changed the entire way we define who wins an election. Which would require a new constitution -- and whether or not anybody thinks that would be a good idea, it is not happening any time soon.

A "Two Party System" is not imposed on us by design, it is an emergent phenomenon of the "first past the post" race to 50% which is how our elections work. There is not enough "oxygen in the room" for three or more viable parties -- whenever one starts to emerge, they either die off (like TR's "Bull Moose" Progressives) or replace one f the earlier parties to become a new second party (as happened when the Republicans came to national power.)

>>738373433
Your whole argument is based on the idea that your vote counts.

It doesn't. Except maybe for dogcatcher in a tiny county somewhere, it has never come down to 1 vote. Voting is demographics and marketing. If YOU refuse to register for a party, that will never affect the outcome of any election.

>>738373255
I would have no quibble with that. (Insert lame ass smiley emoji here.)

>>738373860
>All the power

No.


If the large states got on the same page, they could select the winner regardless of what the small states do. They still have most of the electors -- just not as big a majority as they would have were the allocation purely based on population.

>>738374887
Voting in elections is not the only way members of a party influence the party, though. The party leadership, for example, is chosen in state, local and national conventions. Said leadership recruits candidates to run in the primaries, allocates resources in the general, etc.

Being a member of a party gives you the right to a say in how that party is runs, and a voice in who its candidates are.

But if your only definition of a fair system is one where one individual vote (presumably yours) decides everything, then I am afraid you are not going to find any system that you're going to like.

>>738374887
>My vote does not count if I do not win.

If you are really this stupid, the system will work better if you don't vote. One stupid voter less will not decide (m)any elections, but one less stupid voter here, one less stupid voter there, eventually it makes a difference.

>>738374109
As our friend the erudite anon has been at pains to get across throughout this thread, the federalists never intended the US democracy to be direct. "Direct democracy" is only one kind of democracy, possibly a mythical kind.

>>738375548
Yes, like I said it's marketing and demographics. You can influence the results by getting into the marketing (and changing the ground rules). But your vote doesn't count.

>>738375691
You're really a classic idiot, aren't you? I pointed out that collective votes matter, but YOURS still doesn't. Winning an election is about influencing the masses, not about which levers you yank in the privacy of the voting booth.

>>738372424
>It's a vote on the losing side
Thanks for your input anon, Depending on how you look at it, your vote did and didn't count. I know a majority of people don't fully understand how out election system work, myself included.

>In 2012 I didn't bother voting
But why can't it be one person one vote regardless of state and district lines? Doesn't the electoral college discourage voter like you to not vote within your district?

>>738376045
I've pointed that out several times in the thread, myself.

>>738372436
That's the thing too. Liberals are moving to more liberal states when they need to be moving to red states to sway votes. I don't blame them. I am guilty of this as well.

>>738375164
>if the large states got on the same page
Good luck getting Texas and Commiefornia on the same page. Even if Illinois, New York and Cali were on the same page, they would be outnumbered by Dixie and the Midwest.

>>738374939
Haha thanks anon

>>738368018
>landmass matters more thsn people

Fucking retarded americans

>>738367593
As long as it's close not really. If like 10% of people voted for someone who ended up becoming president then that would be a problem

>>738374335
>the per capita voting power of larger states is intentionally less than the per capita voting power of rural states
Why would anybody design a system that disenfranchises economic centers?

Yes! The majority should always rule, especially when it comes to making laws to enslave minorities.

>>738367593
no
it bothers me more that congress has ceded a lot of its power to the president and executive branch by authorizing the president to go to war for 30 days w/o congressional approval and giving various agencies effective legislative power through regulation authority

>>738367593
wait till 2020 when he wins both the electoral and popular vote - then what are you going to post about

>>738377082
Because they already have disproportionate influence, when it comes to things like wealth, political influence, even superficial stuff like being fashion leaders and having the media on their side. The electoral college is about making sure the little people have a say, too.

>>738377082
It made more sense when the economy was more agrarian.

>>738374192
>the EC gives a bit more voice to smaller states, on a per-capita basis.
>a bit more
So 3.6x more is "a bit," isn't that misleading?
>prevent the voices of the smaller states from being drowned out.
By silencing the majority of the people?

I understand how the system works. I am trying to explain how the system could work better.

>>738367593

TRUMP 2020

>>738376102
You're wrong, I help count the bastards, they get counted. They count.

Unless "count" to you means "I win." In which case no, about half the time your vote will not count.

Or "count" means "I win by only one vote." But if you thought that, you'd be a total retard, and there are none of THOSE guys on /b/...

>>738377082
I thought it was to prevent one party from just winning every single election, so the party that isn't the majority in those areas made decisions that lead to their voting power being less.

>>738377115
Plus, Congress has also ceded power to the Judiciary by writing vast, sprawling, and hard to interpret laws, allowing the judges who interpret to basically become legislators.

Combined, it means more power is centralized in the Presidency, as well as a class of essentially unfireable bureaucrats who aren't accountable to the public.

>>738367593
Do somecreseRch, nigger. We are a nation of 50 independent state. We grant some rights based on population, some on equal basis, nigger. So, this fucking great country, and you think you're smarter than the founding fathers? WHAT a nigger. What taught the banana eater to pretend to think?

>>738376805
Of course -- but if they want to freeze out little states, they COULD.

As it is they split up, as do the small states -- and some combiation of large and small ones picks the winner.

So really, this whole talk of "some small state(s) get to pick the President" is sort of dumb. You need support across a wide spectrum of states -- which was the whole idea.

>>738377429
You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Just because someone counts your vote (+1 to side A!) doesn't mean your vote matters. It only matters if it influences the outcome, which it never will.

Votes only count, en masse. Your individual selection never matters.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. –Winston Churchill

>>738377238
>somehow the words of 18th century slave owners don't translate well in modern times
No shit.

>>738367593
Btw, nigger...you steal the painting?

>>738377229
When you value the thoughts of the minority over the thoughts of the majority, tyranny forms.

>>738377648
>You need support across a wide spectrum of states -- which was the whole idea.
Yep. The electoral college is about giving the little people a voice. The state is a pretty arbitrary unit, but it's what they had at the time. A similar concept could be applied in a more parliamentary system, allowing self-selected groups (like say a trans group, or microstatists) to have a larger voice than their pure numbers would suggest, preventing them from being overwhelmed by say a Christian bloc. Though parliamentary systems are better about giving small groups voices, to start with.

>>738367593

Where do you live? The EU possibly?

So lets say you live in one of the smaller countries of the EU, do you like it if the larger more populous countries get more say over rules enacted by the EU because they have a larger population than your country?

Would you like it if Germany said "we're doing this because we are the most populuous, the rest of you... go fuck yourselves!"

Now... don't get me wrong, I find our electoral college flawed in many ways.

But that doesn't mean I believe our federal government should be ran on a populous vote.

We are still a union of states.

The federal government is to represent that union!

Sorry to smash it to ya like this... but the USA isn't exactly the same kind of country that you may think of in Europe. Countries there are all tiny and small... ours is massive, and formed from a collection of states. States that are comparable to the size of your individual countries in Europe.

Sorry if I don't think California and Texas should have a larger say over how people in Rhode Island and Delaware want to live.

Is our system perfect? Far from.

But hell... it's better than the fucking EU!

>>738377436
>highly advanced economic and cultural centers tend to lean left, while rural, unchanging technological voids tend to lean right
Really jogs the noggin

>>738377894
Fuck no, that's completely opposite. We need to worry about the minorities, or the groups out of favor, not the groups currently in power. Because if we ceded all power to the current majority, they'll just change the rules so they'll never lose power, and hello 1984.

>>738376981
>Underrated point.

If two candidates both hve something close to but under 50% of the popular vote, then:

A) People, in the aggregate, are not able to really decisively choose between them, both have close to the same level of support, AND

B) some way will have to be found to choose between them.

In such instances, the electoral college at least provides a clear winner, not sure how any other system would be better -- can you imagine still recounting every fucking precinct n America? And we don't have enough judges to handle the lawsuits...

>>738377648
>>738378163
Stop being dumb. California, Illinois and New York combined don't have enough electors nor enough population to sway an entire election. Texas, the southeast and the Midwest would be more than enough to outnumber them.

>>738377115
One hope I had was that maybe this congress would reverse that trend. Does not seem to be happening.

>>738378438
> argues that because 3 states can't completely control presidential elections, the system is broken

>>738378197

>>cities lean left, rural communities lean right

Sorry, had to remove the bias and misleading adjectives from that.

Cities tend to be wealthy economic power houses. They can afford to take risks, which means they can afford to lean left. You can invest that extra money easily into the community to build up welfare nets, and public projects.

Rural communities don't have this economic power behind them. There just isn't enough money there. So communities have to protect one another with more conservative techniques. The local governments don't have the money to build safety welfare nets, and fund public projects. So instead communities band together and do this on the private level.

It's like having a pet dog and a pet fish... you can't treat one like the other. And if you try to create rules that apply to both, you're going to have a real hard time not drowning your dog.

>>738377355
>By silencing the majority of the people?

There was no candidate who got the majority of the vote in the recent election, though.

Over 50% did not choose Clinton. Over 50% did not choose Trump.

>>738378354
>minorities are more important than the majority
What are you, a nigger?

>>738378569
No, that's your point. Somehow, you have formed the delusion that California would dominate every election cycle if we switched to a popular vote. I am trying to explain to a congregation of Neanderthals that this is mathematically impossible.

>>738378924
Different anon. You quoted two separate people, and I'm not the one who was talking about California.

>>738378691
Yep. I love how people talk about "mandates" when election turnout rarely scratches 50%.

Most people either don't care, don't think they matter, don't like either choice, or can't be bothered..

>>738378691
Nonvoters voluntarily relinquish their right to vote. A majority of voters wanted Al Gore, too. Gore would have been far and away a much better president than Bush. No middle east quagmires for one.

>>738379248
Al Gore is a pod-person though. No real person will ever be that stiff and expressionless.

>>738379239
Leave it to the people who actually care about this country to make the decisions. If you're too stupid and indifferent to realize you have a voice.

>>738379404
> classic example of the arrogance of the enfranchised and their hate of the disenfranchised

>>738379370
I would rather have a goldfish be president if it means we have no wasted money mired in pointless wars.

>>738379614
I'm arrogant because I think people should vote?

>>738376274
>Doesn't the electoral college discourage voter like you to not vote within your district?
Not at all. I know I'm in a majority conservative state so if I happen to like the liberal candidate in any given election I know that it's unlikely that my state will vote the same way I do. That much is true. But no one forces me to live here. I could move to a majority liberal state, but I choose to stay in a majority conservative state. That isn't the EC discouraging me from voting, that's me deciding what kind of community I want to live in and it's no one's fault but my own. But even if my candidate doesn't win, a vote still has an effect. If the other party's victory is a narrow one, they know that they need to appease more of the other party's voters and/or not go too extreme for the middle-ground voters in order to keep their support for the next election. Whether or not they get in office may be a simple matter of win-or-lose, but the margin by which they won affects how they behave once they are in office. Being in the minority is no excuse to not voice your opinion. Yeah, I did duck out of the 2012 election because I didn't think it would matter in the long run, but ultimately that was because I was confident my candidate would win even without my support, not because I felt discouraged.

>>738379627
Nobody predicted 9/11 in 2000, and that's largely what drove Bush to become the war president, and severely limit our rights through shit like the "Patriot" (liar, liar) act. Without 9/11, I'm not sure he would have been all that different from Gore.

>>738377807
Not so much slavery as who lived where. Medieval England used a similar system, as documented by F. W. Maitland in The Constitutional History of England: when the wealthy and powerful lived in the countryside, the countryside needed fair representation in the government.

The notion of every man having an equal voice in the government is mythical. Every democracy denies the franchise to some members of its society, usually the poorest and least educated. Wealthy landowners almost always make up the most important part of a democracy; if you need them on their lands, tending to their production, then the countryside needs to have a strong voice in the decision-making.

Now that agrarian production has been mechanized, the landowners can afford to live in cities. The countryside is left with predominantly poor and undereducated citizens, the least competent for taking decisions.

>>738379723
You're arrogant because you think the people who feel disenfranchised by the system and opt out because there are no better choices are stupid and don't matter.

>>738377842
No, he just bought it and he thinks it's the real one.

>>738380127
Maybe because
>I have no choices
Means
>I don't know enough about my choices to make an educated decision
Which means you're stupid.

>>738380115
Exactly. The demographics have shifted, and the decision making processes should change to reflect this.

>>738380064
Maybe, but 9/11 DID happen. Gore wouldn't have continued HW Bush's war, and Saddam would still be in power, and ISIS would have never formed. Europe wouldn't be having a refugee crisis, and America would be more prosperous than she is today.

>>738381068
See? Complete arrogance. You're invested the system, so you literally can't even see that some people's beliefs aren't represented by either party. That's such a narrow view, it's amazing you even have the brainpower to post.

File: LiberalsAreRetarded.jpg (212KB, 864x1128px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 864x1128px

>>738367593
Dear faggot,

Our president is NOT "president of the people" he is president of the United States Of America.

People only vote on how many of their state electoral votes go towards who gets to be president.

>>738380064
You sound like you don't think the Bush Family Wehrmacht was complicit in 9/11. Dubya was put into office specifically to curtail civil liberties and to promote oil wars. Even contemporaneous reports likened 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag. The US PATRIOT Act (caps because it's some goofy acronym) was already and waiting to be dropped on Congress -- they couldn't have cobbled the whole thing together so quickly and not a single legislator was able to read it all the way through before it was called for a vote. It contained the REAL ID Act (another goofy acronym) that Bush Daddy tried to foist off on the states, only to be roundly repudiated by all but three or four of them.

>>738369405
No dumbfuck. It's 50 individual states, united to be a country. The federal government is only an AGENT of those states, and constitutionally should have absolutely no fucking say in how the states operate inside the constitutionally boundaries that they follow.

>>738381482
I'm not sure about that. The whole Middle East was a powder keg, and might have still blown up. Bush removed one strongman, but didn't really change the other powers in the region (like the Saudis and Iran). And the refugee crisis and ISIS also required Obama's complicity, since he continued the wars but took a very ineffectual stance when it came to diplomacy, and failed to capitalize on the Arab Spring. It's complicated, and hard to second guess what else could have happened.

And I'm not sure about prosperity, either. Both parties tend to spend money with equal abandon, they just waste it on different things.

>>738381482
Anon, you should start up a business being a psychic since you can know with such vehemence what will transpire in any situation. Why not become a world leader yourself? It's not like you cannot predict exactly how it will happen, right?

>>738382182
>ISIS is Obama's fault
Saddam had one of the most formidable military powers in the region. Had there not been a massive power vacuum, ISIS would have never been allowed to take hold. Obama saw Bush's disapproval amongst the general population was primarily due to what they perceived as warmongering, but these wars would have never even happened under a Gore presidency. There would have been. A tactical strike to eliminate Bin Laden, nothing more. Gore was not one for regime change.

>>738382125
Look up the supremacy clause, dumbass

>>738382667
You think Gore would have gone to war in Iraq?

You think Saddam would allow ISIS to form in his backyard?

It's simple logical thinking, not psychic powers

>>738367593
5 niggers have the same voice as 3 whites?

seem accurate to me.

>majority of Americans white and black and every other color are too dumb/uneducated to even deserve a say in government. why would i want them to choose the prezzy?

>>738382989
I think something like 9/11 will affect you on a level that might surprise you if you are responsible for 300 million people and one of the most powerful nations on earth. I think you cannot know how Gore would react because Gore was not forced to deal with that.

I hated Dubya. I thought he was a trained monkey at best, but when that shit happened, I watched (as an adult already) the world stand still in shock. Many very sweet people I knew advocated bombing the entire middle east into a large sheet of glass.

>>738369781

Except that isn't what I said, idiot

>>738382667
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but would I agree with him even though we are not in a position to know for certain what Al Gore would have done. Saddam, while not the nicest fellow, at least kept Iraq from spinning out of control and the only reason Dubya had to get rid of him was to redress Daddy's honor. (That and, reportedly, Saddam was about to sell his oil for euros instead of dollars.) ISIS and al-Qaeda are cynical geopolitical creations intended to create instability, not autochthonous expressions of Islam -- Robert Kaplan discusses this at great length in his book The Ends of the Earth and makes a strong case for the rise of the extremist imams as being a modern form of "stomach Communism". Bankers and arms dealers need war. Refugees don't.

>>738383488
I agree, it is impossible to say whether or not Gore would have eradicated the Taliban in response to 9/11. I can, however, say with confidence that we would have never even gone to Iraq.

>>738372436
your only source of news is whats cool with your friends on social media
black and women democrat
comedy central
late night talk show segments posted on youtube..

To bring us back to OP's question, here is a very short essay that addresses a possible scenario once voter-turnout ebbs low enough.
Non-Voting as an Act of Secession by Hans Sherrer (2001)
http://forejustice.org/vote/non-voting_as_secession.htm

>>738385021
Nice projecting

File: 1466268984770s.jpg (9KB, 250x244px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x244px

>liberals openly admit the fact that Hillary won the majority vote
>still claim that Russia hacked the election in favour of Donald Trump

>>738385321
>he is dumb enough to believe the two are mutually exclusive