Can some Americunts redpill me on the electoral college? Some

File: election-2016-county-map.png (81KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x386px

>>72988220
It's so that certain states can control the country by themselves. It's the same concept as our congressional process, as in the more people a state has the more congressman they have, the same goes for electoral votes. It was originally implemented because in the early days of the U.S. the majority of people lived in place like, Atlanta, Richmond, New York, Boston. So back then it would've easily been possible for just those 4 cities to control the entire country.

It'd basically be the equivelant of Russia, USA, China, India, and the UK controlling every aspect of the world. Just because their the strongest. This would include everything from global politics to even if a random town in Tuvalu needed a a repair to their road.

>>72988220
Nah, it's pretty retarded and like 75% of votes are irrelevant because most people don't live in battleground states

No its literally retarded. In the olden days the few wealthy white landowners who had the vote would elect people to go represent their state in bog meeting wherein the president would be decided. Nowadays the presidential candidates name is actually on the ballot paper and the entire electoral college is just for show, so they might as well make it popularly elected.

>>72988220
Redpill me go to /pol/

>>72988220
it gives battleground state votes more value than regular votes. i can't say whether this is right or not but it's worked fine so far. america is too large and diverse to use the popular vote.

>>72988458
It's actually working like shit and has failed twice in the past five elections and nobody else uses a system like it because it's obviously retarded

>>72988322
This. Its why voting is so pointless here and the US has such low turnout. Two meme parties are our only options and voting doesn't even matter for most of the country.

>people doubted the ron paul revolution

>>72988482
Norway uses a system that is similar in some aspects. They have no winner takes it all, but they have the area size of a county giving each vote more weight. That is why some votes from the backwater counties have 2.2 times the weight that votes from the capital area do.

>>72988482
Nobody else has a country that is like the United States.

>>72988551
What does this even mean? No two county are entirely alike, yet is still obvious a popularly elected president would be a fairer system.

>>72988551
DOG BLESS DRUE AMERIGAN BADRIOD :DD

Gives power to meme east coasters so they can feel special and relevant. No one gives a fuck about texas and california for example. Literally mean fuckall in an election, but Ohio, Florida, Oh baby, those states are gold mines.

Swing states decide the election. This past election broke the system a bit because hillary outperformed donald so heavily in highly populated areas like California and New York, but she lost the swing states by very narrow margins and thus lost the election

>>72988547
Japan is the same. It's still stupid but they are parliamentary states, so it's somewhat less stupid than an undemocratic presidential system.

>put in place since forever
>people want it gone because their canidate didn't win

it did exactly what it was meant to do

>>72988598
big cities are often filled with liberals who just want more welfare and free shit. rural areas are more conservative. in order to not have urban centers basically rule the rest of the country, we need to have a system that represents them

>>72988699
represents them fairly*
also checking my own digits

>>72988717
How is making someone's vote more valuable representing them fairly?

File: Bezbozhnik_u_stanka_22-1929.jpg (834KB, 2005x2869px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 2005x2869px

>>72988220
It's to give states political power from a source other than how many people live there. It says that Colorado and New Hampshire and Florida are all equal as states and should get votes because of that before the populations are tallied. It doesn't work out that way though, check it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM

>>72988308
It'd be more like the equivalent of Singapore, Taiwan, the paper state, and Panama running the world.

You have to remember though, nearly all of those red squares are depopulated rural areas.

File: 1489199897135.jpg (18KB, 284x339px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 284x339px

>>72988829
fuck you i'm one of those red squares

Eh they're probably right. It's a goofy system powering up states, but majority should always rule in a general election. A small number of states shouldn't decide who the president is, the people as a whole nation should. Fair representation comes through congress and the senate (where one is very large republican majority while the other is republican majority.) Once a republican loses while winning more votes due to this faulty system we have then maybe we can start thinking about changing it. Because so far it's only hit dems twice, but it's bound to happen again at some point.

People can say just going off vote totals gives democrats an unfair advantage due to urban populations but that isn't really true, it's not like republicans have never ever won the popular vote ever. A successful presidential candidate should be able to spread their message everywhere, not just in specified areas.

civics 101 okay

there is 1 elector for every member of congress, and the senate, alright?

now that basically means 1 elector for each congressional district, the amount of congressmen from a state depend on population, since the early 20th century this has been one congressman per ~210000 eligable voters in a zone, now this is at the federal or national level, each state has their own assemblies with their own rules, and whathaveyou

however, the reapportioning of congressmen has been sort of muddy for the past century, there are too many people now I suppose, we'd need a galactic senate sized building to house a large enough congress

but, there are also 2 electors for each senator, the senate has 2 reps from each state, so this is a set value that isn't subject to change beyond newly admitted states

so, you have more populous states getting more districts, and thuse more votes

and in the end it's antiquated really, these electors were tasked with getting hte results of the tally in their zone and heading to the central area where their vote represents that of their people, in the age before telecommunication and fast travel this was how you did it, which is probably also why the real vote is a month or so after the fact

>>72989064

oops, I got lost in my own thinking there, there is 1 elector per senator, a total of 2 per state as a result of senators

whoopsie

I hope I'm remembering that right

incidentally you only have to be 25 iirc to be elected to congress

my uncle always said politics was for people that don't know what else to do with their life, maybe I should give it a shot!

It's so California and New York can't decide every election, and forces candidates to actually give a shite about smaller states if they're afraid they could flip
On the flipside, it means florida, ohio, and pennsylvania control every election

File: 160927210830-tk-ah0927-exlarge-169.jpg (22KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 780x438px

>>72988551
This gave me a boner.

>>72988690
>people want it gone because their candidate didn't win
more like hillary supporters want it gone

>>72988763
Because it allows them to have a deeper say in the conversation than 38million people in California or 28million in New York.

>>72989270
Nah man this has been a thing since 2000. Gore won the popular vote but GWB won Florida so he won the election. Never did have the recount, people still feel cheated about that situation (Jeb Bush was the governor of florida at the time)

>>72988853
Where you at senpai

>>72989206
>>72989367
Not mentioning Texas as a state that can decide everything makes your agenda obvious
Also New York has 19 million people

>>72989383
Didn't dubya win by 564 votes or something, meaning he had the majority votes in the right places
>jeb bush was governed at the time
so? i get being governed being a republican would increase support of dubya but it obviously wasn't that effective considering he won by an unprecedented low amount

>>72988458
>america is too large and diverse to represent the people.
Cool.
You like China? You like North Korea?

>>72989435
notice my flag. it's not like i can vote republican
California alone outvotes Texas and more some. New york also has nearly as many votes at 29, and they've been democrat since 2000

>>72989448
The majority votes in Florida (maybe or maybe not), but he did not have the majority votes of the country, there lies the argument. Why does it matter if he got more votes in Florida if the entire country cast more votes for Gore? The election is not a nomination of president of florida, texas, virginia, etc, it's for the entire USA.

>>72988699
>in order to not have the most populated and productive centres basically rule the rest of the country, we need to have a system that represents the minority who want their out of the way lifestyles to be supported by tax payers money but not if their tax money goes towards the populous commercial centres keeping the economy alive.
Cool, so you're basically a leech and a hypocrite.

File: capture.png (85KB, 933x316px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 933x316px

>>72989270
>more like hillary supporters want it gone

>>72989534
there's another problem right there though, if america chose presidents purely on popular vote you'd have people in the midwest and south saying the exact same thing (only california and newyork choose the election etc)
whatever way you go, you will always have people being underrepresented, like republicans in california or democrats in louisiana, that's just how diverse america is

>>72989448
There is so fucking much shit wrong with the shithole of florida and their voting. 2000 was a disaster. Palm beach ballots were so confusing gore voters ended up voting for Buchanan (as many as 19k ballots spoiled). Also the fact that Jeb literally had control of who could and could not vote, anyone convicted of a felony (not even in the state of florida) had to request their rights back and it was entirely at his discretion. Not only is that unethical it's illegal.

One of the most powerful families in the nation up to old tricks to get the goofball of the family elected and it worked.

>>72989598
Well, then your rural and undeveloped regions will stay that way forever, just like they are in Russia.

Anything that takes power away from California I support.

>>72989689
The butterfly ballot was stupid, but it was just one factor, what really cost Gore was Nader's 97k votes lmao.

>>72989598
>who want their out of the way lifestyles to be supported by tax payers money
Spotted the inner city fag. Seriously tho rural voters are generally very classically liberal, ie less taxes, less gov spending, so I don't really know where you're getting this idea from

goal: prevent new york and texas from having all the power
result: florida and ohio have all the power

>>72988220
The electoral college exists because the USA is not a normal country, it is a union of states who come together for a common cause.

Any time Democrats lose, they get massively anus-hurt about the EC. Pay it no mind.

>>72988220
it's pretty fucking simple, it means smaller states aren't left out during federal elections.
>i-it's unfair
too bad.

>>72988540
>Its why voting is so pointless here and the US has such low turnout

Voter turnout was over 75% in most elections pre-1920. The reason for the drop was simply because women's suffrage doubled the pool of eligible voters, but women have much lower turnout than men.

>>72989689
honestly the ballots were not that confusing, and although they should have been replaced there is no excuse for being so much of a senile fuck that you fuck something like that up so badly.

>>72989893
They were votes for Nader, not stolen votes from Gore, stop this idiotic meme.

Some say the GOP paid Ralph Nader to run and steal Gore's votes, but idk.

Besides, god only knows how many illegal immigrants and dead people voted for Hillary.

File: 1454612668266.png (60KB, 776x723px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 776x723px

>>72997720
>steal
>votes

>>72997720
The left has the laziest conspiracy theorists

Why not? Ross Perot could have just as easily been paid to run and steal votes for Clinton.

>>72998416
>Ross Perot
>not taking equally from the Democrats and Republicans just as he did in 1992
>the concept of stealing votes even being in your head
go away, you're cancer

>>72997454
>it's pretty fucking simple, it means smaller states aren't left out during federal elections.

I can unterstand the reason for the overproportional representation of states with lower population, but they should get rid of the winner takes it all system.
As it stands it completly distorts their elections, because for a large part of the US population who doesn't live in a swing state voting in the presidential elections is almost pointless.

>>72998595
not all states are winner takes all.

>>72998595
States are entirely in control of how their electoral votes are allocated, there's nothing that can be done about it on a federal level.

>because for a large part of the US population who doesn't live in a swing state voting in the presidential elections is almost pointless.
I'm glad you realize this, because a lot of Europeans don't when they critique candidates winning with less votes in our system. There are a lot of Republican voters who live in solid blue states (or vice-versa) who don't even bother to vote in the current system, so saying afterwards that candidate X wouldn't have won had the electoral college system not been used is pointless.

t. Amerishart abroad

>>72998595
The Founders did not plan for or anticipate party politics when the Constitution was written.

>>72989635
Shopped. Where's the timestamp?

>>72999652
I've seen it proven real before, but using it as an argument against Trump is a fallacy.
>why didn't Trump overhaul our entire election system before winning?
>This means he must be a hypocrite

>>72988699
>>72993211
But rural areas receive vastly more in funding than they pay in taxes and conservative states receive more in federal money than they pay. Conservatives want to cut inner city schools for being government overreach but keep their vast government corn subsidies. Conservatism is a "Fuck you. I got mine" ideology and is perfectly fine with gibsmedats as long as its going to them and not other people.

>>72999652
He said it after the 2012 election, when fake news sites were reporting that Obama won with a lower popular vote.

It's an antique holdover from an era when rich WASPs enshrined anti-democratic institutions into law to ensure their monopoly on political power.

The president lost by three million votes. Like if I read that sentence about idk a north african country or an ex-yu country i'd laugh my ass off

>>73004097
>Conservatives want to cut inner city schools for being government overreach but keep their vast government corn subsidies
Ronald Reagan tried unsuccessfully to get rid of those corn subsidies.

File: image.gif (28KB, 800x573px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 800x573px

>>73009550
This is your country on """Fiscal conservatism""" and Alzheimer's

They're just butthurt NY and Cali shitters

The original point of the Electoral College was because the Founders were concerned about sectionalism developing between large, high population states and small, low population states.

>>72988220
Dont worry about it, just know its stupid.

>majority votes for something
>dont do that
Lmao

>>73009642
Yep, no actual argument. Just posts random butthurt about Republicans. :^)

(also since Democrats controlled Congress for all of Reagan's administration)

>>72988220

The electoral college is dumb, it would be less dumb if these 2 things happened.

1) States divided their votes proportionally instead of winner take all. Maine and Nebraska already do this.

2) Presidential Electors were removed. Currently no US citizen outside of the Electoral College Electors gets to vote for the president. (We just get to vote for people who then get the cast the real votes) There is nothing binding those people to vote how they wish and any law that restricts them is unconstitutional since that would be using a law to force someone to vote a particular way.

File: image.jpg (64KB, 547x517px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 547x517px

>>73009755
Right, Ronnyboi dindu nuffin

>>73009871
Electors in most states are legally bound to follow the popular vote of that state.

Why can't some state just split into 10 pieces to fuck with the senate

2 D senators --> 14 D senators 6 R senators or whatever

>>73009924
Thank all that defense spending for ending the Cold War, bringing democracy to millions, and ending the specter of nuclear war. :^)

>>73009642
you know the President doesn't control the economy, right?

Am I the only that's grappling with /pol/'s resolution to fight tooth and nail for the electoral college?

>muh we can't let the coastline decide the outcome of the election
Right, but then let one or two swing states weigh on the outcome?

Every election when Demonrats lose, it's always someone else's fault.

>2000
WAAHHHH THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE ELECTION AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS UNFAIR
>2004
WAAHHHH DIEBOLD RIGGED THE VOTE IN OHIO
>2016
WAAAHHH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS UNFAIR AND TRUMP CHEATED AND PUTIN BOUGHT THAT ELECTION FOR HIM

Try running a better candidate for president next time

>>73009642
This is not that great of a graph and is miss leading. It is easier to lower taxes then it is to stop government programs, so any time period where taxes are lowered is going to result in a large deficit since government programs are not stopped at the same time.

Also the Bill years rode the internet/computer wave which resulted in tons of new incoming taxes as a completely new industry emerged, it would not have mattered who the president was in that time period.

>>73010031
The coastal states very rarely change their voting patterns. They're not a good election metric unlike, say, Florida.

>>73010031
it doesn't have anything to do with your /pol/ boogeyman.
>but then let one or two swing states weigh on the outcome?
All elections are determined by contested constituencies, not safe ones for their respective parties. Which states are swing states also changes a lot.

File: image.jpg (199KB, 957x640px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 957x640px

>>73009987
You mean selling cocaine in Latin America, propping up despots, waging imperial wars and funding fascist death squads? :^)

>>73010031
This election wasn't even decided by swing states it was decided by states that have been solidly blue for 20+ years flipping because of how shit Hillary was

>>73010220
california going from +8D to +30D in 12 years is an enormous change in voting patterns, especially for the most populous state in the country

>>73010317
So once every 30-40 years when Ohio can change colors every election?

>>73010031
Things like the electoral college and wikileaks and whatever aren't judged on their merits, they're judged as tools to help the republican party achieve the /pol/ posters' ultimate goals of getting back at colin kaepernick or the psychologically normal sjw/mexican girl who dumped them in high school

>>73010369
strawman harder faggot

And I think Trump could have had California if he'd wanted it--Democrat policies have been disastrous for that state and a wily enough Republican could capitalize on this fact. But he decided early on to target the upper Midwest, and it worked for him.

File: srbija.jpg (44KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x600px

>>73010421
Remember me when northern ireland and scotland leave

>>73010481
>And I think Trump could have had California if he'd wanted it
no

>>73009932
They do, and those laws would not hold up if challenged. The only thing the Supreme Court has said on the matter is that a state can get a pledge from a person, saying they will vote for candidate X before the make them an elector, but that they cannot force that person to vote for Candidate X.

>>73010224
>anything to do with your /pol/ boogeyman.
Maybe I'd phrased myself wrongly, but /pol/ are the ones that I would one that have endorsed fighting for the electoral college, since that was Trump earned his victory.
>Which states are swing states also changes a lot.
Well not always. From what I would know, Florida and Ohio have always been one in all the elections I've followed, and you can't also deny that some states like Ok. grant their voters twice the voice of a Californian voter.

>>73010311
Winning Florida was the big push though. However, Illinois (or was it Michigan) going for him did also win for it him.

>>73010220
>The coastal states very rarely change their voting patterns.
I mean that /pol/ promotes the idea that coastal states would be granted too much power was the electoral college abolished, which is silly since as it stands, it swing states that nowadays hoard all that power

>>73010369
>they're judged as tools to help the republican party achieve the /pol/ posters'
At least it feels like that, hence that I have mentioned them.

>>73010481
>CA turning red
we're fine with republican governors but turning red for a presidential election is very highly unlikely

>>73010506
>>73010481
>>73010369
Elections aren't about red or blue states ultimately, they're about tapping into the vote of the average working class schmuck. Trump did that and Hillary...did not.

>>73010556
>you can't also deny that some states like Ok. grant their voters twice the voice of a Californian voter.
if you look at it that way, yes. But California still has nearly 60 electoral votes to the "flyovers" 3 each. If there wasn't a 3 electoral vote minimum for states than those places would have no electoral votes, or a fraction of one, which is completely unnacceptable and could potentially seriously damage the US's stability as a nation.

>>73010642
Well, it's not as if Republicans ever seriously contest the West Coast, just as Democrats never seriously contest the South, though those states were voting for Bill Clinton not so long ago. Since candidates have limited time and resources, they pick a couple of states to target and go after them in force. But in theory, any state could be red or blue if you campaigned in it with a marketable, working class message.

>>72988220
the EC was passed into law only 20 years after our declaration of independence because our cities had too much power in our elections. it's easy to see why it was needed

your liberal friends are just upset they lost.

>>73010820
The Democratic margins on the Pacific coast are much higher than Republican margins in the South. One Southern state is already on its way (two if you count Maryland, which I don't) to being solidly blue and another is now purple, and turning Texas purple also appears to be a major party objective for the Democrats.

And considering we've had all of three presidential elections where the winner didn't get the popular vote, and one of those was in the 19th century...meh.

>>73010740
True, and in some sense, there almost seems to be the lingering remembrance of the Civil war in that, where Southern states were scared that they'd be shunned by Northern industrialized states with more voting power, that makes it that the US wants to keep equal power between states, and not citizens. (If that makes any sense).

But it really still is very eerie that such small states can be the states to choose a country of 350 million's future.

>>72988673
hillary lost pretty badly dude

lay off the peyote

>>73010820
i agree with you mostly.. there's really no point to do so. it's not really worth the time and effort and a good campaign manager would focus on those state besides the obligatory visit here and there. the thing about california is that if you flip the state sideways, you sort of get a mini microcosm of america and the voting habits. the middle of ca are mainly farmland and they vote red whereas the ends of the state will vote blue. the people that would vote red would already have done so and the other working class in the state are mainly hispanics and asians who will have a very hard time voting for a republican as a whole. i think it would take couple decades for there to be a paradigm shift in their voting habits or unless the dem does something totally disasterous

>>73011022
4 times this has happened

and the last two times has been the last 2 republican presidents.

>>73010832
>implying the principle of one man one vote is just ad hoc liberal pissantry

The founders also accommodated chattel slavery in their society and made the franchise contingent upon property ownership in many states. Democratic values are at odds with the framers' intentions.

File: trash.jpg (18KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 210x240px

>>73010999
>One Southern state is already on its way (two if you count Maryland, which I don't) to being solidly blue and another is now purple, and turning Texas purple

>>73011077
>and the other working class in the state are mainly hispanics
Illegal wetbacks aren't supposed to be voting, you know.

>>73011096
They didn't want slavery, but it wasn't yet possible to get rid of it. But they put the tools in the Constitution allowing the eventual removal of slavery.

>>72988482
>letting welfare rats determine every election

you're embarrassing

just stop

>>73011099
m8 everything I just said is objectively true. Trump only won Georgia by 5 points and the margin of Republican victory in Texas gets smaller every single election. Virginia has been blue for THREE straight elections. Make some arguments.

>>72988220
It's an outdated system that hasn't been updated. Originally it was intended that each state would have electors that represented their state and would vote for the president. This was because communication was slow and this was the most common sense way to do it. However "muh constitution" fags prevent this from being updated cuz "muh freedums".

>>73011346
>and the margin of Republican victory in Texas gets smaller every single election
Trump won that state with like 90% of the vote.
>Virginia has been blue for THREE straight elections
And now the Upper Midwest is no longer blue. So that kind of negates whatever Virginia does.

>>73011459
>replying seriously to a non-American commenting on American elections
Shig.

>>73011524
if you bothered to read the thread you would know the Bong flag is an american.

>>73011096
>Democratic values are at odds with the framers' intentions
Not really true. The Founders were divided between populists and New England aristocrats who didn't favor direct democracy.

>>73011567
I'm terribly sorry he got banned and has to use a Britain proxy to post while he's waiting for his ban to expire.

>>73011459
>Trump won that state with like 90% of the vote.
no he didn't. He won with 52% of the vote. Romney won with 57%. McCain won with 55%. In 2000 and 2004 Bush won with 60%, the first time against a moderate Southern Democrat with appeal in the South. If things are not reversed with the whole Mexican and Californian transplant thing soon the Democrats will be able to contest that state before you hit middle age.

>And now the Upper Midwest is no longer blue. So that kind of negates whatever Virginia does.
That depends on whether it was Trump's working class appeal or Clinton's complete lack of it that won him those states. I don't think all three of them are going to stay red.

File: abstracthuehue.png (52KB, 318x308px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 318x308px

>>73011639

>he does not know how to proxy

>>73011639
Whatever he is, he's sure fond of Huffington Post copypaste.

>>73011853
>point out serious issues facing the GOP in upcoming years without any real political slant
>s-shill
you should know better than this.

Texas has not been a blue state since 1976, and given the current ideological bent of the Democrat Party, it won't be flipping any time soon.

>>73011929
>serious issues facing the GOP
LOLwhat. The Democrat Party is dead, dude. Irrelevant outside a few areas in the Northeast and West Coast. If anything, it's not the Republicans who are in a bad way now.

>>73011960
how resolute Texans are in their Conservatism isn't going to matter if they continue to face all-out demographic assault.

>>73012006
Swear to fucking god people were on here saying this exact same shit after Obama won in 2008. Then the GOP got Trump. Don't throw out the possibility that the Democrats may get theirs eventually.

>>73012123
>how resolute Texans are in their Conservatism isn't going to matter if they continue to face all-out demographic assault

Luckily SJWs don't tend to breed or have families. It goes with the territory.

California has always been a liberal, anything-goes state from its inception and Texas has always been a redneck, he-man state from its inception. It's not about party affiliation, it's about culture.

>>73012277
>sjw are all Democrats
Sure thing pop

>>73012410
>liberals
>anything-goes

Yeah cause wanting to make "hate speech" illegal is so "anything goes" mentaility