Redpill me on the Electoral College. Why do libs push to change/remove

>>133924718
>united STATES of america
thread done saged

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.

Because they know they'll have the popular vote eternally locked based on numbers alone.

>What makes it more fair than the regular system of voting.

It's probably not a fair system of voting, still. But if we switch to the popular vote, the "flyover states" will completely lose any political voice they ever had.

Protects against the lefties biting the hand that feeds them

>>133924718
they liked it just fine last summer. what changed?

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because it keeps Jew York and Commiefornia from picking the president

>>133924949

I keep thinking about that, it does make sense if it would protect from that kind of mob rule.

But then again, there are more people outside of those areas no ?

>>133924718
The country is a republic of states, each state needs to have a fairly equal voice in deciding the president. If you were to remove it and go popular vote, the election would be decided by New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Every other state would no longer matter

>>133924718
Because they want all the illegal beaners voting in California to decide the election.

I actually think we ccould abolish the electoral colleges, so long as we also get federal voter ID and much better fraud protection.

>>133925216
>But then again, there are more people outside of those areas no ?
Overall yes, but statewise no.

>>133924718

Any discussion of the electoral college will lead to the same conclusion, the USA is hopelessly divided. No election system is going to work well in such a massive country with different values by region. I say split up the country into several smaller ones

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
because they keep losing close elections to the republican who knows how to work the college see trump, bush, hayes

>>133924718
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0

Its retarded because the Senate is already represented 2 per state

>>133924941
They lost.

>>133924718
They only push to change it when their candidate loses.

>>133925216
you underestimate how many people there are in cali and NY

and thats not counting illegals and illegal votes. Electoral college means that no matter how many people are in those 2 states, they can't decide elections. otherwise they would have a disproportionate influence

>>133925362
like 3 or 4 regions or just 50 sovereign states? both sound interesting.

File: electoral college huge desaster.png (51KB, 609x290px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 609x290px

>>133924718
>Redpill me on the Electoral College.

I have it on good authority that it's a "disaster".

File: 1494106170848.jpg (702KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 2560x1707px

It was a well-intentioned idea that failed.

It was meant to prevent a few regions from deciding the election based on population (New York, California, New Jersey, etc). Instead, a few states decide the election based on swing-state status (Florida, Ohio, etc).

America is doomed because despite the majority of the population being relatively progressive on economic issues, our election system puts us at the behest of retarded christian dirt-farmers who don't give a fuck what happens to the country because the rapture's coming.

Gerrymandering also contributes to the same result; a government that shits on the very concept of consent of the governed.

File: IMG_0779.jpg (74KB, 750x995px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 750x995px

illinois is a republican state. Farm country for 95% of the state. Chicago however is full of nigs and spics so they control the elections. The electoral college prevents this on a national scale.

>>133925833
50 sovereign states would probably themselves form 3 or 4 countries for security and stability

File: 1487049304596.jpg (24KB, 434x424px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 434x424px

>>133925254
>>133925560
Illegal votes are a actually republicuck myth.

The risk/reward is fucked.

>>133925560
fucking someone who understands. EC is there to insure metropolitan votes don't cancel out rural votes.

>>133924718
It's suppose to be 50 independent autonomous states/countries deciding, not a mass collectivization of all the people within them.

People have a hard time conceptualizing the electoral college because the power of the states has diminished greatly vs. the federal government now compared to the past. Most everyone views themselves as American, not a Marylander or Kentuckian. This wasn't always the case.

If you don't believe in the power of the states vs. the federal government, the electoral college is never going to make sense to you.

>>133924718
>We don't live in a democracy
>We live in a republic
>Your affiliation to your state comes before your affiliation to your nation
>You don't vote for the president
>You actually vote for who your state will support for president.
>The person that can gain the majority of the states to support him becomes president
>but its not fair that small states get the same vote as big states so they compromise with a weighted system to give the big states more leverage
>but in return the proportion of citizens per electoral vote is in favor of the small states

>that is why we have an electoral system.

File: 1461029289861.jpg (97KB, 638x638px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 638x638px

I wanted to add:

Congress has a 20% approval rating, and Trump has a 36% approval rating

How the fuck can anyone pretend the U.S. federal government has ANY legitimacy?

We need to balkanize. The country is effectively ungovernable in it's current state.

>>133924718
It exists so that voting power is not concentrated in the major metropolitan areas. Dems were just fine with it when Obama won reelection.

>>133925896
>cherry picking a tweet from 6.5 yrs ago
Technically, he's right though, that's why it's good. It's a check against pure democracy. That's why all 4 times it's happened, a Republican benefited.

>>133925912
>the majority of the country being progressive on economic issues
Again, these people are concentrated in a few states. Even if you remove the electoral college the Senate would still be dominated by Republicans and moderate Dems. If you want socialism move to Cali where they're progressively enacting those policies at a state level.

>>133926518
>We don't live in a democracy
>We live in a republic

Are you under the delusion that "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive concepts?

>Trumpcuck education

>>133924718
Similar to first past the post, it ensures that the Tyranny of the Majority does not become something that people have to contend with. It makes sure that coastal city folk don't get to dictate policy for the rural farmers when they have no understanding of their way of life.

>>133924718
without it it becomes "Who does California want as president".

Do you want that?

>>133927015
> implying it's not "Who does Florida and Ohio want to be president"

File: electoral-small.png (199KB, 720x384px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 720x384px

That was easy.

Our electoral system is winner-take-all, so it structurally supports a two-party system. This means no coalition governments like in Europe, where compromise is thereby further supported, and the overton window is thus made smaller, at least in the realm of governmental politics, which then influences outward as things do. This allows for greater societal control by the elite. Where the electoral college was created to provide originally something of this control, it no longer functions like this, and getting rid of it will actually empower the elites.

The American style also emphasizes political individuals, where in Europe the parties are elected, who then choose the politician. This American emphasis is an outgrowth of a two party system, where individuals vie for power within that context, whereas in the euro-system parties vie for power, because they don't have an electoral system. This makes outsiders who don't really represent the rest of their parties, like Trump or Sanders, impossible or unlikely. Beyond that, ideological umbrella parties like those in a two party system are both empowering to ideological minorities and disempowering to ideological majorities within those parties. The media complex, the educational complex, the financial sectors, are controlled by leftists and Jews. The splitting into ideologically more distinct multi-party systems, as would result would greatly empower them. The Republican party as it is (politicians or voterbase), is a far wider umbrella coalition of various smaller ideological groups (libertarians, neo-cons, racially conscious white people), whereas the democratic party is far more of a monolith. They would therefore be empowered in a multi-party system, which is the structural outgrowth of a proportional, non-electoral, system.

The very wide coalition of far-flung conservative interests represented by the modern republican voterbase is probly the only thing keep the flood of poz back. W/o it, say hello to king jew

>>133925912
>It was a well-intentioned idea that failed.
Weird, when Obama won twice in a row we didn't hear a peep from the Republicans. All of a sudden, Trump wins and it's a failure?

File: 1497901262618.png (422KB, 400x577px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 400x577px

>>133927372
The constitution is also a piece of shit beyond repair.

We'd be better off with a parliament that'd allow third parties.

>>133927470
>We should devolve into the shit pit that is Britain.
No.

File: 1439121438472.jpg (23KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x368px

>>133927389
Because Obama won in spite of the electoral college, not because of it.

Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college.

>>133927565
> it's okay having two pro-war pro-globalist parties

>>133924718
Democrats lose in every version of the elctoral college whether it's Winner Take All, Congressional Districts, or Proportional Allocation.
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

The only way they can hope to win is a national popular vote.

>>133927569
>Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college.
Oh, he won the electoral college? Great. What separated him from Trump then?

Interesting loaded question followed by T_D style circle jerking.
Although I would wager that 'libruhls' are butt-hurt about the institution because 'they' "lost".

File: Clinton Archipelago.png (412KB, 1600x952px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1600x952px

1/2

File: 1436310283305.jpg (183KB, 1262x854px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1262x854px

>>133927848
Trump didn't win the popular vote.

That's the difference.

Consent of the governed, which is a prerequisite for a government to be legitimate, is the difference.

File: Trumpland.png (1MB, 1600x870px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x870px

2/2

>>133925896
we aren't a democracy, dumbasses
we're a representative republic

File: blumpf.jpg (708KB, 3000x2763px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 3000x2763px

>>133927982
>representative democracy

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because they lost

They liked it a lot when Obama won (despite the fact that he also won the popular vote).

>>133924718

>voting
>"People have to power to change the government"

>>133924906

THIS
H
I
S

>>133924949
And Chicongo

>>133927285
Not our fault that Hillary was okay with destroying our economy and then proceeded to ignore us through her campaign. She could've came here, but didn't.

File: kys.gif (711KB, 200x331px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 200x331px

>>133927982
>Consent of the governed
The most high and mighty thing I've heard all day.

File: 3z1HWKU.png (8KB, 351x366px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 351x366px

>>133928353
> fuck John Locke, what a fuckin faggot, PRAISE KEK #MAGA
>>133928341
You see the problem, though, right?

No matter how you slice it, the president will be picked by a handful of regions to the detriment of others.

>>133927982
I kept a quote a South African that fits:

Do you really think that any of the US states with lower populations would have joined the union if it was one man one vote?

Imagine if we had to elect a world goverment tomorrow. If it was decided by popular vote, China and India alone would have more than a 1/3rd (!!) of the total vote. We would all either be at the mercy of their choices due to the sheer weight they carry, or face eternal deadlock Why would any country join such a world government if it meant that they would no longer have any say?

File: IMG_0581.jpg (84KB, 655x480px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 655x480px

>>133926575
Follow your friends

>>133925216
If you take cali, texas, ny, and florida thats roughly 1/3 of the population. Without the electoral college candidates would pander to those states + 3 or 4 more and screw the rest of the country over. The electoral college is 100% necessary for our country.

File: IMG_0464.jpg (96KB, 519x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 519x600px

>>133924718

Are you idiots really that partisan and brainwashed in here that you don't realize the electoral college means 1 vote doesn't necesarily equal 1 vote?

Oh right you elected a orange facist used car salesman for the maymays

File: 1436375299192.jpg (11KB, 150x363px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 150x363px

>>133928580
EXACTLY.

Any government spread too thin will fail to represent its constituents, and will inevitably be ripped apart.

This is a big part of why empires have a shelf-life.

Just like a global government would be doomed, the U.S. federal government looks increasingly doomed due to polarization.

>>133928780
There's a serious argument to be made that the electoral college is a violation of equal protection under the law for that very reason.

>>133928073
>we're a representative republic

And how are those representatives chosen, you humongous inbred retard hypercunt? Maybe democratically?

>Trumpcuck education

File: 1415142475648.jpg (63KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 400x299px

>>133928897
So we're the same political system as Switzerland?

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because they've lost twice because of it recently, no other reasons.

The electoral college is a very old compromise. Back when the constitution was being written, there was a fear that populous south will overpower underpopulated north in elections. Since both "regions" of the US were different economically speaking, they've had different needs regarding for example trade policy(and this continued for decades). Electoral college propped up small northern states with small population like Rhode Island or Connecticut, while making states like Virginia(back then bigger than it is now) or NC little less powerful in state matters. Now of course every campaign would trade RI for VA but the balance was tipped slightly towards small states.

Nowadays, the 3 vote states include:
>Vermont
>Delware
>DC

As states that typically vote for Democrats regardless of elections.

>ND
>SD
>Wyoming
>Alaska

Which typically vote Republican.

Montana is kind of a swing state, if you look at the polls and results through the years, they probably mostly vote republicans because of gun rights if anything.

So you have 3 vs 4 solid 3 vote states and one red-leaning one. Technically a little bit skewed towards Republicans but in the grand scheme of things nobody visits these states during campaigns(maybe outside of DC) so they're pretty much worthless.

>>133929017
> direct democracy is the only kind of democracy

please, read a fucking book, for once in your life

>>133928483
>You see the problem, though, right?

Maybe she should've appealed to a larger voter base.

>>133925437
>>133925912
Neither of you understand US politics. Go read a book or listen to a lecture and come back when you're less of a retard.

File: 1433935002529.gif (4MB, 293x164px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 293x164px

>>133929118
You don't understand.

If the electoral college allows the election to be decided by a few (swing) states, it's self-defeating and pointless.

>>133929234
Swing states change. A popular vote election would allow for the election to be decided by a few cities, which would never change.

>>133926203
It's almost impossible to prove after the fact, so the risk isn't as high as you think it is.

File: 1374176006277.jpg (56KB, 445x638px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 445x638px

>>133929149
> No, really guys, it makes sense to have a leader who the majority of the country opposed from day one!
> If you don't want your vote to arbitrarily count less than a shitkicker in central pennsylvania you're a retard

>>133928804
Thats not the point I was trying to make. A popular vote applied to a government does NOT WORK. If anything, this popular vote shit has us polarised even more! The only reason you don't feel represented is because this particular roll of the dice didn't turn out in your favor.

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
They only really care when they lose
They were defending it in 2012 when they thought they have the demographics on lock for the foreseeable future.

>>133929234
Swing states are just states that dont lean heavily towards either party. Saying that they decide the whole election is retarded.

File: rural and suburban retards2.png (182KB, 640x624px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 640x624px

It's affirmative action for the biggest losers in American society. Rural and suburban right wing retard methed out flyover Cleetustards

>>133929234
>letting California and New York decide every election
You're an idiot.

>>133924818
Fpbp

>>133929390
Okay we'll see how long the union lasts if the 10 most populous states get pick the president every time.

>>133929234
Swing states changed through years. The fact that various, sometimes small states have different interests than the big ones didn't.

Take the simplest thing - coal.

There are 3 states that are typical "coal states" in the US. Pennsylvania, Western Virginia and Wyoming. WV and WY have 4 and 3 votes each, while Penny has 20, but most of this doesn't come from those coal-producing areas(it's a big, populous state), meaning that in general elections, coal mines and coal power plant workers(and their families) don't matter at all, politicians can kill them on screen and nobody will care. With EC, they can swing Penny and equal 7 votes total from WV and WY so suddenly, they start to matter and their problems are being addressed.

>>133925362
Noh. Split states up based on population density. It affects culture and state interests. Illinois is being severely affected by Chicago. Same thing in California, which should be like 6 states. New York state is different from New York City. Large cities and surrounding suburbs should be their own states with their own senates and reps. And states rights should be expanded. That's how you allow greater harmony in the states.

dem states openly and knowingly allow vote fraud. giving thise few states all the control would destroy the country and lead to civil war. remember all the nukes are in red states

>>133928897
the representatives are chosen democratically, but the government is a constitutional republic.

File: 1483827968598.jpg (267KB, 1073x1428px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1073x1428px

>>133929644
That's just it though.

The union itself is a fucking retarded idea.

>>133928483
Yes but those regions aren't a lock for any one party. Infinitely preferable to "republicans don't even run for office in" California getting to decide.

>>133929747
Thats not what were arguing about dumbfuck. Dont try to change the subject because you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>133929728
What about the nukes in ships you fucking spastic?

And for that matter, who gives a fuck? Is America going to nuke itself to defend a shitty?

>>133924906
Kansas here. If the electoral college seized to exist, everyone would just stop going to the polls here

>>133925913
Champaign County is only blue due to the university students and the hippies in Urbana. Fuckers ruin everything.

>>133929838
*subs

fuck me

>>133929850
America would be better for it

>>133929747
>The union itself is a fucking retarded idea.
Unless you win everytime, of course. Then all is harmony.

>>133929915
Hi Justin

>>133924718
Leftists want to ditch the electoral college for a majority vote system because that way they can cheat by pumping in millions of fake votes.

>>133929915
Nothing says "better" like Democrat fortresses amirite?

>>133929734
>the government is a constitutional republic

A government isn't a nation, therefore it can't be a republic.

Words have meanings. Learn them.

>>133929554
Day of the rake fucking when?

>>133929554
You seem to forget most of the rural and suburban retards can read while 30% of city people are illiterate.

>>133926203
Try to vote, risk getting caught and being deported
Don't vote, risk losing election and being deported

The risk/reward is absolutely there, it's just a matter of how many actually do it. Especially since a lot of them probably don't even know they aren't supposed to vote, what with Obongo and Slick Willy tacitly encouraging it.

>>133924718
Liberals only want to remove it when it doesn't work for them. I remember them defending it when Obama won without the popular vote.

>>133929836
It is EXACTLY what we're talking about.

We're debating the merits of our election system and it's a factual reality that no matter what system we use, it's going to cause either the majority of the population to be screwed over, or the majority of physical area to be screwed over.

You are arguing in defense of a system that weighs the votes of individual citizens differently based on where they live, discriminating against the majority.

>>133924718
It gives equal representation of the states, whiteout regard to there population. I.E. Pennsylvania is not on par with with California and not a forgotten and unrepresented backwater. It's to keep the smaller states from revolting against the liberal urban centers.

>rural and suburban retards
Let's see California without the Midwest and sunbelt. You realize all too late you can't live off almond milk alone.

File: 1500229793172.png (352KB, 999x720px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 999x720px

>>133930096
Obama won the popular vote too. Both times.

>>133930048
Not soon enough. These fucking leafs need the rope quick. Also the stupid commie as well.

>>133930218
>American education

File: 1490261863572.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>133930218
>>133930012
Well that didn't take long.

>>133930099
>discriminating against the majority.
But as a progressive, that's literally what you want, so I don't see the problem.
It's called protection from Tyranny of the Majority. This is what it's really about, not protecting you from whites people.

File: 1416194885826.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>133930347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

>>133930012
Wait, if we aren't a Constitutional Republic but are electing representatives whose job it is to interpret, edit and enforce the Constitution through democracy, what the fuck are we?

>>133929747
*teleports the goalposts behind you*
Pssh... Nothing personal... Kid.

>>133930099
>You are arguing in defense of a system that weighs the votes of individual citizens differently based on where they live, discriminating against the majority.

Yeah, the electoral college. Not the union.

>>133930628
The alternative is one-man-one-vote, which disempowers flyover states

This country is federally ungovernable. It needs to end.

File: 1488590723364.jpg (174KB, 699x1024px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 699x1024px

>>133930711
Fuck communism.

>>133930711
>The alternative is one-man-one-vote, which disempowers flyover states.
I honestly can't tell if you think that is good or bad. Then again, you just used the word "flyover" unironically so...

>>133924718

California and New York are the biggest states in the United States, and they also happen to be extremely liberal. They want to change it to the popular vote so it almost guarantees a liberal president. Basically they want to monopolize the polling system for their own political gain. Surprise, surprise.

File: 1477104901080.jpg (112KB, 811x1136px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 811x1136px

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
Because they lost the last presidential election because of it.

>What makes it more fair than the regular system of voting.
"More fair" is of course subjective and "fair" is one of my least favorite words in politics, but here's the idea:

The US is a federal republic, which means two things. We have a relatively strong unifying government that regulates at the national level things that aren't practical to regulate at the state and local level (federal), and we have a representative democracy, not a direct one (republic).

The "federal" part means that the national government in a sense is governing over the states, not the individuals in them, while the state and local governments are the ones governing their respective people. This means that people can live somewhere that has laws they like, while the federal government takes care of things like national defense and interstate commerce that might be impractical to deal with at the state level.

The electoral college balances the idea that the federal government governs over the states with the fact that federal level decisions affect us all. Each state getting one vote is of course unfair, but if everything at the federal level is decided by popular vote, then smaller states may as well have no votes and more importantly, there's not much point in dividing state and national powers because the big population centers would just dictate all laws nationwide.

The compromise is the same as for representatives in congress. Every state gets 2 electoral votes (same as the number of senators), so no state is voiceless, and then they get additional votes based on population (same number as representatives in the house) to give weight to larger states.

Many smaller states would not have ratified the constitution without a system like this because they knew they would be fucked and it's unfair to change the system after the fact unless you want to allow for secession.

>>133930518
>>133931029
*crickets*
Fucking typical.

>>133924718
Liberals want to change it so that consumer states, hyper densely populated cities, which always vote democrat will hold all the power over the producer states which vote conservative and will always be able to decide policy by mob rule.

Otherwise, everyone outside of places like New York and California would have no effective vote at all.

That is both why liberals want to change it and why it is more fair than the regular system of voting.

File: 1444865275799 (1).jpg (217KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1920x1200px

>>133924718
Literally because it's the only thing standing in their way between opposition and absolute domination. They absolutely have the popular vote, for a variety of reasons. Voter fraud or not. It's just the way it is, and while it's simple to say that a majority should win and we're wrong, that's obviously false given the entirety of history.

Philosophically, they hate what it stands for and its roots. It comes from the original formation of the nation after the Articles of Confederation (And here's where I could put a barb about that being all you need because they hate America), wherein there was strong ideals about state's rights, anti-federalism, and every person having an individual voice and vote while preventing a tyranny of the majority. This is diametrically opposed to leftist politics. They prefer a strong, central authority to control all and for all laws to be the same everywhere, and they prefer majority rule not only because it gives them power, but because they operate, psychologically and philosophically, off of group think, collectivist ideals, gratification from others, and everyone needing to agree with one thing and it having mass appeal. The Electoral College is counter to that, promotes dissent, individualism, and tries to break up power so that a broader people have opinions, power, and liberty in their own areas for what they want, even if the majority doesn't want it. After all, this is a nation founded because people wanted to fuck off and do what they wanted regardless of what the main body of the government said, so it's obvious that would be intrinsically valuable as an option.

In short, the Electoral College promotes liberty, individualism, and states' rights, which is entirely counter to most of what leftists want.

>>133932195
>They absolutely have the popular vote, for a variety of reasons.
Democracy is great until the people realize they can vote wealth into their pockets.

>muh mob rule
>thats why we have muh delegates, so one state doesnt have more influence tham the other

>california gives 55 delegates to dems despite 1/3 being republicans?
>winning california gives you more delegates than winning north AND south dakota??? And even a bunch of more states combined???
>so wait, the bigger the population the more delegates basically???
>what do you mean, republicans win texas by a more shrinking margin each year?

File: 1452631977582 (1).jpg (416KB, 1800x1274px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1800x1274px

>>133925912
You misunderstand the fundamentals of the system and why the votes are divided out the way they are, and they're still near-disproportionately given to the high density urban states. You're also, somehow, completely ignorant of the cultural variations in this nation, but also a prime example of it assuming everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You also mention Gerrymandering and don't mention that the Left benefits from it more often than the right. You also mistake mob rule for the consent of the governed, which is actually preserved by the system by preventing mob rule.

I could maybe go further, but I'll instead take the opportunity to suggest you go kill yourself, you pinko bastard.

>>133928483
How a fucking commie tries to pretend he has any value in the works of Locke is entirely incomprehensible to me

File: 1464102514689.jpg (69KB, 597x604px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 597x604px

>>133925912
Swing states change every cycle and gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election you fucking retard.

>>133924818
/thread

>>133932412
that's why the greek democracy didn't allow everyone to vote and only educated men that owned land were allowed to vote,no sand niggers,no women,not even immigrants who have been living in Athens for a long time

It keeps sanctuary cities from electing the president that promises the most gibs every election.

>>133932906
I wish we had something like that where only people with a vested interest could vote - land owners, military veterans, people who spend more in taxes on average than they receive, etc. Also they should have to pass a basics civics test. Not like they have to be a history professor, but you should have a basic understanding of the hows and whys.

>>133925560
Upstate NY'er here. You underestimate how many people are here. NYC constantly decides our elections.

>>133924718
The dems want to change to a direct election model, which favours them.
However no other country (that you would count as a functioning democracy) elects such a powerful leader that way, everyone else uses some sort of parliamentary system.

In America's case that would essentially be using a majority of electoral districts to determine the president - which would, with or without gerrymandering - return republicans.

>>133924718
Because democracy is fucking stupid. Uneducated people think democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that "democracy is freedom". Democracy results in the 49% being plundered by the 51%. If 9 people vote to kill an innocent person - that's not morally right, but in the eyes of the left it's "fair" because most people wanted it.

The role of politicians is ridiculously over exaggerated in society. The USA was founded using the constitution to protect the 3 natural rights: life, liberty and property. Life was to be protected by means of the 2nd amendment, liberty protected by the 1st (and others) amendments, property protected by the 4th amendment.

The law was not intended to be used as a tool for politicians to steal from others, which is exactly what it becomes in democracy.

The USA was never intended to be a democracy for this reason, and I sure as hell hope it never becomes one.

Socialism is an inevitable product of democracy.

>>133927982
"Popular vote" doesn't actually exist as a meaningful statistic in potus elections.

>>133929915
Hello Obamaleaf, saged reported hacked doxxed and sued.

>>133933400
Can always count on dad for a little wisdom.

File: 1471050317518.jpg (373KB, 1600x1582px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1600x1582px

You know, I just had a bit of an epiphany. And by that I mean I just had a nice, short, pithy little gotcha thought that facilitates a circle-jerk, but I digress.

This is just another point in the column of Leftism requiring mental illness or severe delusion or logical disconnect. I love how so many of them think the majority of people are sheep, entirely unaware of the truth of social justice or whatever. How someone can say people are stupid for supporting full capitalism, with McDonald's supported and facilitated worldwide by majority, tons of people liking the Kardashians and supporting their cancerous existence, that majorities shop at Wal-Mart, that majorities are fools that don't understand their politics and wouldn't support revolution.

They think those sorts of things, then they turn around, and when they're the majority they say "It should be a majority rule. It should be 1 to 1, complete equality, Socialism for everyone, majority should rule." And they'll never even have a second of self-doubt about it, or ever think about the flaws there.

File: OBAMA LEAF WINS AGAIN2.jpg (320KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 800x532px

>>133933481
you wish

>>133934420
Also, on that note, I just realized something else while looking at a thread about a butthurt liberal teacher. I love how they always say the education system is ruined, it's awful, it's worthless, Bush ruined it, whatever, and ignore the fact THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE TEACHERS ARE FUCKING LIBERAL AND SPREAD THAT.

AAAAAAHHHHH.

File: 1500272370813.png (346KB, 999x720px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 999x720px

>>133930218
>a state communist cant use photoshop

unironically kill yourself scum

File: 1464556876207.jpg (28KB, 224x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 224x400px

>>133934678
oh its the guy who excuses Obamas slaughter of innocent lives in the middle east and funding of terrorist groups in sovereign nations

hows it goin my man

File: bin laden.jpg (49KB, 480x351px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x351px

>>133935059

>>133935324
oh wow he really got Osama bin laden good

hope killing everyone in that wedding with drone strikes in Pakistan was worth it

>>133924718
They only want to remove it when they lose.

File: 911bushkeptussafe2.jpg (82KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1280x720px

>>133935549

>>133924718

Of course the dumbest things said in this thread have come from commies and oniggerleaf.

Of course.

It's all so tiresome.

>>133935633
>he didnt pay attention to my last post

yeah already posted that meme

so after killing Osama it was ok to fund al-Qaeda in Syria? you know, the group he was in charge of...that took responsibility for the attack? The guys chopping the heads off children in Syria right now?

>>133925913
>illinois is a republican state
>except the parts people actually live in and the majority of the population

>>133924906
>having literally the exact same level of electoral influence as every other citizen in the country
>its not fair
Having congressmen is the representation they're supposed to have and that wouldn't go anywhere. They would still have a disproportionate political power in the senate, but just having a little more political power than a citizen of CA or NY isn't good enough, you need a lot more.

File: obama killing isis3.png (447KB, 656x608px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 656x608px

>>133936033

Because there are only 2 parties in America that are legally allowed to win.

>>133936336
>isis
>deflects from the fact hes funding al-Qaeda

ISIS isnt al-Qaeda dude. he funded a known terrorist group to rebel against the Syrian government. rebel groups that have been proven to have in their possession chemical weapons btw. wonder how they got those.

File: are you fucking joking.jpg (173KB, 584x305px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 584x305px

>>133936336
>Shoot first, ask Congress later

I'm sure you'd be absolutely fucking thrilled if Trump said something similar

>>133929554
>rural retards dont have human and constitutional rights and dont deserve to vote

kay

>>133933400
>t in the eyes of the left it's "fair" because most people wanted it.
RETARD ALERT
Last time I checked its been the RIGHT whose tried to decide every civil rights issue by popular vote and its been the left who've had to bring it to the supreme court.
If democracy is stupid then disproportionate democracy is even stupider, which is literally all that the electoral college is; a popular vote total where some states are given proportionately more votes than others. There's nothing ideologically 'constitutional' about it at all.

>>133936850
>rural people deserve to have their vote count more than everyone else
Sure they do, anon. Otherwise the big bad majority would control our democracy, imagine such a thing!

File: 1500271533546.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>133924718
They push to change it because if it was based solely on votes they'd win every time bc of minorities and faggots.

>>133937032
hey i agree that the electoral college is unfair, but id rather devalue some votes to give the minority a chance to have a voice once in a while to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Besides there's literally so many of them that their states are still the majority of the vote

at least until we can figure out how to fix the system.

>>133936814
He didn't actually say something like that its just an editorial line.
The POTUS is commander and chief of the military after all there is a lot of wiggle room about what he can do without congressional approval. "acts of war" are poorly defined in the War on Terror. Republicans are pretty firmly responsible for that precedent in the first place.

>>133924718
Electoral college means you can't just mass import spics and other 3rd workers into urban zones and have them vote how you want to win every election
They have to be spread out for that, which is much harder to do and takes many more years

>>133937263
>We have to give the minority a voice
>Besides the one it already has in the House of Representatives and the Senate
>It needs a voice in the White House too
The minority needs power anon but it doesn't need ALL the power.

>>133937212
Since minorities are so fucking close to being a majority all it takes is some white traitors to tip them over the winning side

>>133924718
>Why do libs push to change/remove it.
they're retarded and believe we're a democracy not republic

>>133924718
I don't understand system but we are taught it's been active since 1787 so it must be acceptable

File: 1483474927599m.jpg (159KB, 758x1024px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 758x1024px

>>133924718
Simple redpill - it prevent the 5 biggest cities to control every elections

>>133937557
>it does get a voice in somethings because thats too much power

really man? come on think this through for a moment.

>>133937659
What do you even think those words mean. They're not mutually exclusive at all. A republic is just any form of government without a monarch.
Literally every form of democracy that doesn't have a monarch is also a republic. We would still be a republic if the Presidential general election was decided by popular vote (you know, the same way every other elected official in the country is decided). It wouldn't change the categorization of our governmental system at all.

>>133937471
That's fair on all points, really. We've been really willy-nilly with that all. I do remember seeing that a lot at the time, so I sort of figured he did say something like it.

Fucking media. Fake bullshit even when they like you.

File: bin laden3.jpg (57KB, 500x412px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x412px

>>133936754

>>133937857
Read a fucking book, you idiot.

A Democracy is a straight one-to-one conceptually, voice of the people. A Republic is a representative Democracy wherein everyone has a vote, and they put up a representative to voice their best interests and cause. I don't know where you're getting that because I've literally never heard that, except some similar ideas from antiquity. And those were from antiquity.

Next, you'll be asking me if I even know what Liberal means, and how you're a classical Liberal or something.

>>133924718
Friendly reminder that obamaleaf is mentally ill, he had a breakdown on election night and has gotten more and more crazy as the days go on. He has been defending/encouraging pedophilia and globalism and needs to seek mental help. Shitposting is his coping mechanism.

>>133937827
There's nothing wrong with the minority holding a majority power in the senate. That's literally what the senate was designed to do. As things have panned out, the minority controls the congress too.
They also have equal access to the judicial branch of government.

Why is that not enough?
Why does the minority need a "good shot" at controlling the executive branch too?
The position we're in right now is that the majority in this country doesn't control anything at all. How is that rational?
Without the electoral college the democrat majority would control the executive branch while the republican minority would still control both houses of congress. The judicial branch would remain neutral. Is that so awful?

>>133938021
What kind of retard actually thinks this is an achievement? Do you think he was up all night researching where he was? Do you think he killed him himself? Do you think he differs from any other president in that they all would have killed him given the opportunity?

>>133924949
This

>>133927982
United STATES of America not United Peoples of America
The Federal Government was meant to govern the States, not the individuals within all the states you stupid nigger. The States are the governed party on the Federal level. (At least that is how it is supposed to be legally)

File: 1482807651433.jpg (92KB, 702x534px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 702x534px

>>133938021
>deflects to birth certificate

i guess you can make baseless assumptions when you have nothing to counter the point I am making. Have fun justifying the slaughter of innocent people and destabilization of the middle east man. Obama made a lot of really terrible decisions in the region.

>>133927982
Popular vote mean nothing

>>133930218
He's probably referring to the 2008 Democratic primary. You know, the one Obama lost the popular vote in but won by delegates?

>>133938242
judicial branch? nobody gets voted into there dude its always neutral like you say, and ill tell you how its rational, they control their state dude. Look at the voter maps all those Blue states also have large populations of red too. In addition Congress and Senate have elections every two years. So the Dems always have a chance to get back into the majority. Why are you so worried?

>>133938183
Jesus wept, anon. I'm not the one who needs to read a fucking book.
Modern terminology is streamlined because Pure Democracy as you define it doesn't exist any more (but lecture me about 'antiquated' definitions).
No country on earth holds a fucking vote for everything. Modern democracies are all representative democracies.
This is also the reason you define a Republic the way you do, In the modern world all the republics are run by elections because how the fuck else can you think to 'give power to the people' without voting.
Look at all the countries in the world who are republics that decide their leaders by direct popular vote. You could literally have a system of government where you do nothing but vote for a supreme leader and it would still be a republic.
Why on earth you think that the electoral college is some sort of defining feature of a Republic is beyond me when it only defines the electoral method of our executive branch.

>a republic
A system of government where the power is held by the people instead of a supreme authority
>democracy
Means the system is based on votes
>representative
Means those votes put representatives into office who make the decisions on behalf of the people.

The united states is each of these things.

>>133939189
Well, I could retaliate on some of those points, but I'll say this instead. While I don't think you have a perfect answer, you have succeeded in making me reconsider my positions on the linguistics of the whole thing, and that's rare around here. You gave me an actual fucking argument and it worked, and I'm glad there's still rare places and times where people do something like that. Thank you.

File: 1486632400889.jpg (81KB, 1024x894px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1024x894px

Only White males should vote

File: 1493480929256.png (142KB, 1311x810px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1311x810px

Electoral System > Democracy

>>133939129
That's what i'm saying. The judicial branch isn't decided by votes so people in minority positions don't get shunted out of them. Anyone can lobby a case up the court system.

I'm not worried anon its just ideologically indefensible for the majority of voters to have a minority of power in the house, the senate, and the white house at the same time, but people argue like this is a good thing. Its obviously not.