Electoral college

The Electoral College means the presidency can't be decided by a bunch of illegal/dead voters in California.

The left were all for the Electoral College when they thought they had a Blue Wall advantage. Now that they lost chess, they're whining that they won by the rules of checkers.

>>128092676
But wouldn't just registering for a democratic vote have the same effect?

>>128092975
no. the states have electors because some interests cannot be conveyed by population alone. farmland by its very nature guarantees sparser populations but a very important commodity.

File: LyinSlate.jpg (75KB, 956x661px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 956x661px

It's an instrument of white supremacy and sexism with 5 very good reasons to keep it.

>>128093336
But why should a farmers opinions matter more than a business execs in California, the sparser the population the more power their vote holds

>>128093521
I'm looking for legit reasons other than, fuckin libtards

>>128093336
>farmland by its very nature guarantees sparser populations but a very important commodity.

nigga, u dumb

Tyranny of the populous reigns supreme... women and Democrats would always rule the political sphere because they outnumber everyone.

>>128092270
Irrelevant.
Those are the rules.
If you don't like it there are some other rules about changing the rules.
I believe you burgers call it a constitution.

>>128093532
>But why should a farmers opinions matter more than a business execs in California, the sparser the population the more power their vote holds
why should the populations of like 3 cities override the rest of the nation? The interests of big city faggots and small town farmers aren't likely to have much over lap.

>>128092270
The idea originally is for the collage to have some balls and stand up against the people if they disagree with them. However everybody in politics is a croney now, so they just follow the masses in fear of losing their position.

During the times of the creation of America there was a distinct population difference in America with Northern Cities having much more people and population density compared to the southern and largely untamed south. Not only that, but the debate on slavery was also a factor in the creation of the EC, as the South could in theory boat in millions of voters.

The EC was made to protect smaller states from the tyranny of the majority, it does have obvious problems as some states have significantly more EC votes due to immigration, economics, and rural/urban development, but it is much more preferable to a straight up direct democracy

>>128093789
But what legal, not morale, reason is there for valuing the farmer more, they're both citizens, they're both paying taxes why? If the majority wants to vote that way it's in the majorities interest, the good of the people why not?

>>128093971
>The idea originally is for the collage to have some balls and stand up against the people if they disagree with them
no. originally it was to keep Virginia from deciding the president by themselves

>>128093336
>land matters more than people

This is essentially the electoral college argument when you distill it to its essence.

>>128094273
>But what legal, not morale, reason
>good of the people
make up your mind. The legal reason is that thats what the Constitution says. So, thats the law.

>>128094224
Why is it preferable? That's what I'm asking I got into a debate and right now it seems it's just a fossil left over from the founding, how does it protect the minority if the majority still elects the electors, how does it protect if they're bound to vote with the popular vote?

>>128094273
If the people starve to death because the farmer has no land to farm, then is it good for the people?

no it is not

It reassigns the value of each state's vote so that the rural and sparsely populated regions have as much say as the densely populated urban regions.
Basically, it's a genius system that has been in use for 200+ years for a very good reason. Anyone who is against it is clearly a city lib who wants to commit genocide against rural white people and turn the US into another disaster failed state because 'fuck white people'.

>>128094520
>t if they're bound to vote with the popular vote?
they aren't

>>128092270
because people are stupid and having actual competent people vote for our leaders while retaining the idea at the very least that our system brings rights to the people is efficient and beneficial. why would i now more than ever want the other ~40% of subhuman retards directly vote to run my country?

File: 1466478384578.png (725KB, 1218x1080px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 1218x1080px

>>128094586
>>128094586
>>128094586
>>128094586
>>128094586
annnnnnd /thread

>>128094501
Fair enough I said that to prevent someone from going "well if they live in the city their a nigger and should be shot" so it's because they own more land, it shows that land is more important than people

>>128092270
The electoral college is important because we are a country made up of states, not a giant random heap of fucktards.
State lines matter.
That is why states elect the president.

>>128094616
Yes they are several states have laws that make the electors bound to the popular vote they have to vote that way, it's the law

>>12809227
The US is a nation derived of states. Each state's elections are separate because each state is necessarily its own while agreeing to be within the union. California does not get to hold the votes for the entire country just because they have more people than the other states do.

It would be like Germany controlling the entire EU just because it has more people.

We are not and have never been a single democratic state but always a union of states working in a representative manner.

It's fairly balanced too as the bigger states are awarded more electoral votes.

>>128094838
Why tho? That's just like arbitrarily saying because that's the way it is, what's the reason?

>>128094707
the number of electoral votes each state gets is still based on population, not land size.

>>128094853
oh yea, there are some like that, not many i don't think.

>>128094273
Not being very accepting of minorities there bud.

>>128094520
Democracy itself favors the majority over the minority, if 3 people want what 1 person doesn't, then those 3 person would stand to win. if you are arguing for a system that protects the interest of the minority, then look into middle-age European style Feudalism.

The EC would allow the 3 people to vote instead for 1-2 representatives while also allowing the 1 person 1 representative. Again, not totally 'fair' but more 'fair' than straight up popular vote

>>128094968
Yes but we've capped it so even though the population in California continues to grow it doesn't gain any, voters in Montana count for 3 times more than voters in california

>>128092270
>letting rural and suburban retards directly vote for a candidate
>letting an urban renaissance man represent them through the electoral college
Gee, I don't fucking know

>>128094303
Yeah that's the moron explanation for people who lack the spark.

>>128095122
Try to explain a different way? I don't understand it still seems like they got oppressed functionally indifferent

>>128095135
>Yes but we've capped it so even though the population in California continues to grow it doesn't gain any
thank god. Its not a perfect system, but it does a much better job of protecting a minority than a straight up democratic one

>>128094966
You seriously can't wrap your head around why states matter in a republic?
We are not a democracy.
The electoral college is how it is because our chosen form of government is a republic.
If the states don't get to vote their interests, they have no point in participating.

>>128095217
>Yeah that's the moron explanation for people who lack the spark.
wut

>>128092270
The USA's constitution doesn't even have the word democracy in there. USA's a republic

>>128095157
That just seems like trusting others over yourself I'm confused?

>>128092270
>Why is it important? What's better about the electoral college than a purely democratic election?
The US is a federation of states, and the states elect the president. They are free to decide how to select the electors, and virtually all states now do it in a popular WTA elections. They are free to pledge their delegates to the winner of the national popular vote.
There are pros and cons re: the EC, but it's a meaningless discussion.
Originally the point of the EC was to have "wise men" elect the president. The popular election of delegates on the state level wasn't what they had in mind.

>>128094707
It's not about land. It's about a person living in New York not having a clue what goes on in rural Utah. It has nothing to do with the land size. It has everything to do with keeping ignorant masses deciding what's best for people that live an entirely different set of circumstances.

>>128095135
We're not the United States of California.

>>128092270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&t=8s
too layz to type all this and if you are asking this you could use the pictures

File: image.gif (1MB, 195x229px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 195x229px

>>128095458
>trusting rural and suburban retards

>>128095505
why does a kraut know more than>>128095285
on our EC?

>>128095608
kinda what i was wondering

>>128095443
>The USA's constitution doesn't even have the word democracy in there. USA's a republic

See, the Federal Republic of Germany is a republic, the UK is not.

>>128095608
Secretly they fetishize how we made a federalized state when they keep failing.

It must be better than pure democracy if Trump won from it, that's all I know

>>128095412
NO THATS WHAT IM FUCKING ASKING, we all know the states aren't gonna secede we're functionally one cohesive country, it's like calling a clown a mime because it sounds nicer, we are one country, we aren't separating so why not vote altogether

>>128094966
Because the "United States of America" are 50 independent states united by the federal government to operate as a country.
Why are there 50 stars on the flag we pledge to?

Property and land ownership also get represented along with population. The electoral college balances the voting power in a way that is most fair to all 50 states.

File: texas and usa.jpg (74KB, 560x533px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 560x533px

>>128095726
>, we all know the states aren't gonna secede we're functionally one cohesive country,
speak for yourself

>>128092270
It's constituency based politics, which allows diverse groups to exert equivalent influence rather than allowing a single large group, or handful of large groups, to effectively silence local issues.

>>128095608
Boi I'm trying to learn, expand my horizons I believed it without evidence before and I had my views challenged so I'm trying to understand why, so I can solidify or change my views

>>128095726
>we all know the states aren't gonna secede
You are clairvoyant? You could not possibly know that. Countries break up. This one did previously.
Remove most state's ability to influence the federal executive branch and see what happens.

>>128095726
We're closer to 56 different countries than we are to 1 country. On paper most of our government should be administered by the states and the Feds would just be mediators and overseers of very large projects. We've strayed significantly from that over time but long ago it was common for people to consider themselves a 'Virginian' first and an 'American' second.

>>128095762
But why should someone from montanas vote count more than someone from California?

>>128094966
I'm not sure if you just got bored and stopped reading. A nation is a union of states. States act semi-independently. They didn't agree to join the union just so that they could be dominated by someone else's controlling interests.

Why would you willingly agree to join a group that could override your interests at any moment. You join a group with assurances that you may maintain a level of independence and that what you request carries some measured weight.

It benefits rural voters at the expense of urban voters. It's not inherently better or worse than a popular vote, but if you vote Republican, you should 100% support it.

>>128096070
Yeah but that doesn't count anymore, I thought we were supposed to be more concerned about how things are than how they "should be"

>>128096073
It has nothing to do with their vote counting more, it doesn't.

It has to do with that state getting a vote that matters at all. Individuals do not elect the president, they cast a vote that tells their state representatives whom they wish to vote for. California has more population and is appointed more state representatives so they have more voting power.

You cannot compare individual votes directly to voting power, because they do not decide anything. State representatives votes decide the election.

>>128095703
>Secretly they fetishize how we made a federalized state when they keep failing.

In Imperial Germany, the states had much much more rights than they do now have in the US.

The "original" US failed two times as a federal country, first the early Confederation failed, then you had a civil war, the worst conflict so far in North America.

The Civil War robbed your states of much of their power and made you an imperial nation, and since then the US kicked ass on the world stage.

Imperial Germany lacked the strong central government the US got in the Civil War, it didn't even have a really unified army.

The modern Federal Republic of Germany happens to be an American creation (to some extent), hence the name.

>>128096172
That's dumb I think we should go off what's right not what wins, I'm not arrogant enough to assume I'm always right

>>128096404
It's not your fault or our fault, it's those damn commies from East Berlin that infected your society

I think the major issue why the electoral college is apparently difficult to understand is because we throw around how we're a democracy, which we aren't. We're a democratic republic. There is quite a difference.

>>128096709
But we are functionally a democracy, none of the states are going to secede so why not just have one big votes where blue voters in Kentucky get as much representation as red voters in Kentucky, right now no matter how you vote your states going red in ky

>>128096573
>It's not your fault or our fault, it's those damn commies from East Berlin that infected your society
I did not say that anything is 'your fault,' I merely pointed out that the general structure of the country was - to some - extent - imposed by occupation forces. It evidently worked much better than past attempts until very recently.

>>128096232
The framework is still there for states to assert themselves if they wish. States led the charge on gay marriage and are currently doing the same thing with marijuana laws. Some even feel like federal immigration laws do not apply to them. States still have considerable leeway in what the Feds consider tolerable behavior.

>>128096937
A federal republic with representatives sent to the capital after a democratic vote. States have their own senates to vote upon local issues, cities have city councils, etc. It all gets broken down across the country. People vote for the representative they want to represent the part of a state they're in. The reasoning behind naming half of Congress 'House of Representatives' should be quite self-explanatory.

>>128096937
No, functionally we are a democratic republic, if they were the same, they'd be called the same thing. It's a Union of 50 states, and it isn't up for discussion.

>>128096937
>right now no matter how you vote your states going red in ky
But that's only because the people vote that way. Every state can be a swing state if its people want it.
And as I already pointed out, it's up to Kentucky how they choose their delegates. They can adopt a proportinal system if they want or choose them by district.
It's not an EC problem.

>>128096404
Was more referring to your current EU project as it's a bit more on scale. Hopefully once that project collapses the continent into ruin you'll come to your senses and just copy us.

>>128096937
The blunt answer is because democracies fail because their population is retarded and in a direct democracy they will destroy themselves.

We need qualified representatives to protect us from droves of idiots. That's the true answer that liberal progressive womens studies majors cannot handle.

>>128096073
In this specific scenario? Because California is retarded.

In general, the problem has nothing to do with comparative representation. Again, states are not together. Our nationwide election is actually 50 independent elections with each state voting on who the state will elect to president. It's not shared. It never has been. There is no part of the constitution that makes that claim. If a person in California wants to move to Montana and vote there than their vote will carry the same weight. Otherwise, Montana has its election entirely independent of California.

A state is a sovereign government. One thing US education really sucks at is explaining that states are their own governments. They aren't just different localities, they are different sovereign bodies that have agreed to meet together on a different, federal level.

It's like any other association of nations. You've got the UN, or the EU for example. Each independent country votes its own delegation or representation and submit that decision to the federal level. In a US election each state's vote determines how their delegation of electoral voters will act. In a UN decision, each country is selecting its own leadership, who will go forth to the UN and represent their countries interests among a union of other countries.

>>128092270
For whom, the people or the ruling class? The ruling class gets a veto point over the will of the people, and the people get dick.

>>128096453
You should at least be arragonf enough to say you know what's better for you personally than some person on the other side of the US that has no idea of how life is in your state.

>>128092270
In America, the candidate with the stronger campaign and actual goals set out won. In France, the candidate that promised foreign invaders free hands outs won. The electoral college is there to prevent France from happening. If it wasn't Hillary would've won purely off her border jumping wetbacks.

>>128097213
>>128097208

The US 'battle' over 'republic' and 'democracy' is due to an academic and philosophical debate from the 18th century, when the words had differnet menaings as they do today.

A republic is any state without a royal dynasty, basically. China is a republic.

A democracy is when decisions are made by popular votes, directly (referenda) or indirectly (via the House).

The Founders didn't wnat the US to be a genuine democracy, they wanted a system where "wise men" make many of the decisions, including electing the president. It was a system based on elitism, but with people having a say and a local representation.

Since then, the democratic element was greatly strenghtened, like with the popular election of electors.

The US is a federal republic with democratic elections, hence a democracy, too.

China is a republic without democratic elections.

>>128096937
Its almost as if thats what the definition of a democracy is ya dingus.

>>128096937

No. We aren't functionally a democracy, just because you don't understand how our government works. We are functionally a democratic republic by every meaningful metric of understanding (namely the constitution, which is the law that holds this shortest together). Just because you don't understand those nuances, doesn't mean you can substitute your ignorance and say that we are something we are not.

>>128092270
Basic concept I believe is so that 3-5 states dictate the direction of a country with 51 states.
The states would be pretty retarded if New York, Cali, and Oregon dictated who was president.

>>128097769
>people having a say and a local representation
That's the story, but in reality they wanted to set the people against each other to protect the wealthy.

>>128093532
Because that's the deal this nation was founded on. Why do you think the Senate and House exist? It's because the small states and populous states needed to compromise. To remove electoral college is to renege on the deal that established this nation.

>wait, your vote counts for 1/10,000th of 5 votes? mine only counts for 1/100,000th of 50 votes!
oy vey, highly problematic for those incapable of middle school math

>>128098164
>because dead plutocrats said so
Not an argument.

>>128092270
The electoral college is literally one of the most important political institutions you have. Winner takes all states on the other hand are very questionable in the 21st century

>>128097284
>Was more referring to your current EU project as it's a bit more on scale
It's not 'our' project; your deep state globalist created it in 1948 and then West germany one year later to manage it, so its an adopted child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Committee_on_United_Europe

The EU was never meant to be a happy home for Europeans, it's there so the likes of Soros can impose their will on Europeans. It cannot be fixed, only be killed.

A united Europe would always be a nightmare, as the US - Americans - was a single nation that existed prior to its organization as a nation state. A united Europe would always be a multinational mess more like Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary or the Soviet Union; a country without a shared identity will always fail. Words on a paper can't change hearts and minds.

>>128095726
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

On May 29, 1787, Edmund Randolph of the Virginia delegation proposed the creation of a bicameral legislature. Under his proposal, membership in both houses would be allocated to each state proportional to its population; however, candidates for the lower house would be nominated and elected by the people of each state. This proposal allowed fairness and equality to the people. Candidates for the upper house would be nominated by the state legislatures of each state and then elected by the members of the lower house. This proposal was known as the Virginia Plan.

Less populous states like Delaware were afraid that such an arrangement would result in their voices and interests being drowned out by the larger states. Many delegates also felt that the Convention did not have the authority to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation,[1] as the Virginia Plan would have.[2] In response, on June 15, 1787, William Paterson of the New Jersey delegation proposed a legislature consisting of a single house. Each state was to have equal representation in this body, regardless of population. The New Jersey Plan, as it was called, would have left the Articles of Confederation in place, but would have amended them to somewhat increase Congress's powers.[3]

>>128098465
At the time of the convention, the South was growing more quickly than the North, and Southern states had the most extensive Western claims. South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia were small in the 1780s, but they expected growth, and thus favored proportional representation. New York was one of the largest states at the time, but two of its three representatives (Alexander Hamilton being the exception) supported an equal representation per state, as part of their desire to see maximum autonomy for the states. (The two representatives other than Hamilton had left the convention before the representation issue was resolved, leaving Hamilton, and New York state, without a vote.)

James Madison and Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional representation group. Madison argued that a conspiracy of large states against the small states was unrealistic as the large states were so different from each other. Hamilton argued that the states were artificial entities made up of individuals, and accused small state representatives of wanting power, not liberty (see History of the United States Senate).

For their part, the small state representatives argued that the states were, in fact, of a legally equal status, and that proportional representation would be unfair to their states. Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened on behalf of the small states, "the small ones w[ould] find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice."

Elbridge Gerry ridiculed the small states’ claim of sovereignty, saying “that we never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty.”[4]

>>128097858
We're going to lose all our rights. People already don't understand our current system designed to protect us.

It's being abused and bypassed. Popular opinion being manipulated in order to cause rioting and protesting that will increase destabilization.

France already has "No-Go" zones full of immigrants against police and white people. It's already starting to happen in our own states like "No whitey day" at colleges.

Peoples small minds, big egos and selfish desires will be taken advantage of and we will be out bred in the coming years. Our system is being stepped on every day, completely ignoring and lacking to enforce some laws but not others. "Sanctuary cities" literally giving a free pass to a federal immigration crime. Lawlessness and disorder will be the beginning of the end, and there is no option for diplomacy with the regressive left. Only force and violence. America in a civil war or destabilized failing state will be weakened, opening up opportunities for our enemies or making our country malleable for others to remove laws that our proper system would never allow.

The only question I have is how do we stop it, and are we too late already? Have we already passed the tipping point?

>>128098568
>designed to protect us.
Us who? And how sure are you that you're any more worth protecting than anyone else?

>>128098644
Us as in The American people. The constitution, congress, judicial, executive branch, the law that governs the entire nation are all systems put in place to protect us all. That has nothing to do with your political ideologies it has to do with you being an American and having liberties, freedom, and justice.

File: hhhhh.jpg (18KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 342x342px

>>128092270
James Madison...
>[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

File: 1478899527140.jpg (131KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1024x678px

>>128092270
Alexis de Tocqueville...

>I am therefore of the opinion that social power superior to all others must always be placed somewhere; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course and give it time to moderate its own vehemence.

>Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are always equal to his power. There is no power on earth so worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live elsewhere, under other laws.

If you go by simple popular vote, the only interests that politicians would cater to would be within major cities. Flyover states wouldn't be given the time of day since the populations are far smaller.

>>128098831
I'm laughing in your face you oligarch Jesus freak. Go back to plebbit you sad little authoritarian serf.

Fuck California /usgovt

>>128092270
As more democracy like traditions get adopted by The Republic... the higher the chance it will transition into an oligarchy.

Assume we have done away with the EC, and vote by simple majority.

Let's then say that many people in Ohio believe Philadelphia's voting system is rotten with fraud and that they cast tens of thousands of extra votes for candidate X (regardless of whether such fraud actually exists). How should Ohioans proceed if they favor candidate Y? They will be tempted to commit fraud themselves to correct the imbalance, or find themselves helpless in a perceived state of tyranny. Mistrust breeds fraud, and fraud mistrust, and everything falls apart in due time.

File: ana.jpg (115KB, 576x720px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 576x720px

>>128099408
That's not how anacyclosis works.

>>128098568

Democracy, the god that failed.

Anyone with a comfortable understanding of our founding would know why things were set the way they were in the first place. People wanted Washington to be King before they ever wanted to risk the rule of the mob. Democracy is 2 wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner. Without a basic protection of rights and a garauntee of meaningful representation, our country would be ruled by its lowest common denominators.

>>128098644
Us is the individual. Our government is supposed to protect the individual and their rights from the rule of the mob. You get to have your right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness even if everyone in the room hates you and would rather simply vote to take all your shit and fuck you over.

File: IMG_7363.jpg (28KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x250px

>>128092270
Because if we didn't have the electoral college, California and New York would pick every President.

>>128099756
>Us is the individual. You get to have your right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness even if everyone in the room hates you and would rather simply vote to take all your shit and fuck you over.
Did you read the Federalist Papers or just your Constitutional Sunday school lessons? #10 talks about it in big circumspect words, but after just a little decoding, they wanted an oligarchy.
Face it, these are not average men. These were the robber barons of their time. I don't consider myself beholden to their opinions when they have been debunked in deed dozens of times from Shays' Rebellion to the DNC.
Enjoy being a peasant.

>>128099536
I bring up this point because many Trump supporters believed in the existence of widespread voter fraud this election cycle, and a few actually did commit voter fraud as a result.

If we brought the founding fathers back from the dead, and told them we wanted to switch to simple majority voting, you wouldn't hear "oh jee whiz why didn't *we* think of that???"

A lot has changed since the eighteenth century. Fundamental human nature has not.

File: go back.gif (2MB, 444x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 444x250px

>>128093532
Are you implying that one persons vote is more important than somebody else's that you care nothing for. Rhetorical question, you've obviously already made up your mind on the matter and are just here to argue for the sake of arguing.

>>128100530
Voter fraud is when voters cast dishonest votes. Election fraud is when people running elections run elections dishonestly.
Know the difference. It could save your vote.

File: ewwno.gif (486KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 500x281px

>>128099606
A country ruled by Detroit niggers...

>>128099756
That is not a job for the government. It's engaged citizens duty to protect the people and keep their own government in check.
We are the firemen, policemen, volunteers and members of communities. It's our duty to get informed and involved and to keep our overgrowing federal government balanced and in check. It's an American citizens duty.

Yet today, people simply want their way. They are ignorant, selfish, hateful, discriminatory yet they claim they are the opposite and everything they support attacks the foundation of our system that protects everyone. Cultural Marxism is a falsehood of deceit that spreads like wildfire consuming reasonable good people and converting them into destructive radicals. They claim they are progressive but practice more intolerance and racism than any other group they viciously attack and misrepresent in order to paint themselves as a victim while in reality they are the bully and the aggressor that is actively attacking our beloved country.

>>128100805
In light of this I would have to replace 'voter fraud' with 'election fraud' in several instances. Ty

>>128100388
Federalist 10 talks specifically about the effects that factions will have on the country and states. To counter the effects of mob rule where people can easily be swept up by demogogues, the solution is that the control of and powers of government should be dispersed widely rather than centralized. Its far better to keep the keys of power in many separate hands, rather than in the hands of a few people.

But perhaps you can enlighten me on all of the "decoding" you have done.

>>128094273
Because there needs to be equal representation, the founders understood that majority rule is every bit as much of a tyranny as living under a king.

The majority is far too fucking stupid to be deciding the way I should be governed, because I have rights too.

>>128102335
>Federalist 10 talks specifically about the effects that factions will have on the country and states
My reading was that they intended to encourage factionalization in order to protect "opulence" from a unified populace, i.e. the rich.
If you believe that the Framers were of good will and honest intent, your reading makes sense. If you think of them as venal slaveholders with a lust for power, my reading makes sense.

>>128102755
The constitution gives inalienable rights to the people, how would that benefit anyone with a lust for power? If anything it's been the largest thorn in the side of anyone who tries to take over America.

They even discussed the importance of the 2nd amendment claiming they could someday become tyrannical and that people should have the ability to defend against that.

You don't know anything about American history and all you do is peddle lies. Democrats are the KKK founders and supporters of slavery.

Fuck off commie.

>>128093532
I was under the impression the left hates big business. Why would they want big business to have more say?

>>128103320
The constitution gives no inalienable rights. Preambles are not legally actionable. The constitution gives the US first dibs on all rights and lets the state decide which of the scraps get to filter down to the people. Do you never tire of licking the sphincters of the opulent?
Nobody is more enslaved than those who believe, on the basis of the shittiest of evidence, that they are free.
You're a fucking shill regurgitating what you were taught in Sunday school. Learn to read critically and stop projecting benevolence on those who despise you.

Hamilton- "That gov't is best which governs best"

The founders gave power to the people not because of any abstract feels about muh common man, but rather because they believed that the people were the safest depository of power. And they prescribed an electoral system because a diversity of population means more than a majority, it's as simpleas that. The modern nonsense about muh touching democratic common man has nothing to do with our constitution

>>128103665
I spoke of the constitution, not the preamble to the constitution by nice shoehorn attempt.
You are a classic leftist, shifting to personal attacks and doubling down on lies.

The constitution was designed by the people for the people. You are a deceitful liar who seeks the destruction of this great nation and you are threatened because you will never have your way as long as that document stands.

>>128103665
14th amendment, gayboy

>>128092270
this is a republic
>the founders stated that democracy could be used as a form of tyranny

the parliament in Britain passed the laws such as stamp act that lead to the revolution initially

misrepresentation is the source of our electoral college

without it, Los Angeles and New York would be the only cities that really determined presidents

>>128102755
I think of them as neither. They were pragmatic people who just cast off the monarchy but knew the history of Democracy, with people like Socrates being sentenced to death by their democratic societies.

They realized that it would neither work to have a king nor a demagogue leading with the promise of gibz. I don't worship them or the constitution but I am thankful that it has at least limited the ability for incapable NEETs and chimps to vote away my paychecks and take away my individual rights so they can feel safe and unoffended.

>>128103665
You know the bill of rights are considered a part of this constitution. When rights are set forth with statements like "shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" they are recognizing said rights as inherent and beyond the reproach of mob rule.

>>128105119
They are also described as inalienable because they supersede all other state or federal law without "due process" as described in the constitution.
The law is important. In the words of Trey Gowdy: "The law is the single greatest unifying and equalizing force that we have."

When you know your rights you demand them. Inform and educate the public, and defend and respect the law. Lawlessness benefits no one but tyrants and war criminals.

>>128093532
Because we have to subsidize a lot of chilangos and other shit around (both niggers of this great country) because most politicians waste our taxes in election campaign aimed voters there.
"Democratic election" is cuality=cuantity. Electoral college is Cuality=/=cuantity
Do you want that niggers in California and Oregon to have the same cuality vote as another state? Do you want the same shit like my country? come to here and I go there.

>>128095410
>protecting minorities
This.
When are we giving the mooslims their 5 extra votes per person?