Explain please

>it's a "moron doesn't understand electoral college" rerun

every 4 years the same thing

>>34038541
The electoral college votes based on what the people vote. If a state votes republican, the electoral representatives from that state go to the college and vote republican. It's just a system to prevent cities and other dense population states controlling the entire country.

>>34038541
Our system is "winner take all per state" each state has a value in number of electoral college votes. The candidate must win a simple majority of votes in that state to get all the electoral college votes from that state.

Its a pretty bad system, but it was justified at the beginning of our country. Now there are flimsy reasons to keep it, and flimsy reasons to change it.

>>34038541
I also live in Europe, and in my country votes count differently depending on where you live.

>>34038577
So it exists purely to stop the majority of voters??

That just doesn't seem fair. Especially since the republicans are the weaker party (85% of people side with the Democrats and their policy positions, like and increased wage, healthcare etc).

>>34038743
Now you just look like a shillbot.

The way people are in California, New York and other coastal high population states is going to be entirely different from the rest of the country. Going just by majority allows something called tyranny by the majority, where the highest population areas (which are typically liberal) make policy for the rest of the country, leaving those states wholly under represented.

File: IMG_0151.jpg (260KB, 659x772px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 659x772px

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF

>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/
>>>/pol/

>>34038541
>But it just seems undemocratic

That's where you are fucking up. The United States is a representative Republic, not a Democracy. The founding fathers abhorred the idea of Democracy (mob rule).

>>34038743
>So it exists purely to stop the majority of voters??
>That just doesn't seem fair
Pure democracy is just mob rule. If two wolves and a sheep are voting on what's for dinner, the wolves are going toing to vote to eat the sheep, and it's fucked. On the other hand, if it's two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner, that wolf is going to starve. That's democracy.

The point of the American system is to make sure the rights of the minority aren't trampled on by the majority. It ain't perfect, but there you go.

>>34038774
>tyranny by the majority

I'd hardly call an increased living wage, equal rights, education, corporations paying a fair share in tax, access to clean drinking water and decent healthcare "tyranny"

The majority want these things, and they're objectively good for you.

>>34038743
>So it exists purely to stop the majority of voters??
Shill detected.
It exists so that retarded city slickers that never did a day of hard farm work in their life don't run the country into the ground with their retarded policies that fuck over the American working class and rural producers.

I'd take 1000 redneck farmers over 1000 "well educated and oh so tolerant" liberal city scum any day of the week, because the farmers can actually get hard work done when needed, while liberals will be too busy demanding more safe spaces.

America is a whole country and it relies heavily on it's agricultural produce. The cities may have more PEOPLE, but the electoral system is to make sure that all REGIONS of america have an equal say. Citi-tards just don;t understand the realities of living on a rural farm and what their dumb policies will actual do to their fellow americans.

>>34038847
Forcing someone to buy/pay for these things is tyranny though. That's what Obamacare is. The govenrment forcing someone to buy something. Not providing something you can buy, forcing you to buy it, and punishing you if you don't.

So the loser's (republicans that the majority don't vote for since bush jr) decide everything?

That's just pure tyranny.

>>34038847
The majority want them but the majority doesn't know how to get them, people are stupid and easily manipulated

>>34038899
The people are not even supposed to be voting on the president. See Bush vs. Gore. The president is decided by the states, not the people.

>>34038847
But that's not what the Democrats deliver, ever. They're firmly in in the corporate back pocket and only care about dumping more money in welfare checks for future generators of democrat voters.

>>34038847
>and they're objectively good for you.
Except the "living wage" hurts those who would actually need it most because companies will just hire LESS people to keep their old operating costs, "Equal rights" is something you already fucking have (and no, marriage for gays is not a right. Marriage is a religious ceremony and you do NOT have the right to take away the 'Right to disassociate' from these religious groups to give muh poor gays a special day), Education is in such a mess BECAUSE of liberal idiots in the first place, corporations in probably the only good one here, "clean drinking water" is already in 99% of the US, and "decent" (by which I bet you mean 'free') healthcare costs a fucking ton in tax money.

>>34038899
>T-That's just pure tyranny!
Not at all. Maybe if liberals weren't lazy shit and went out to vote Donny wouldn't have gotten in. You're saying that the farming, republican regions NEVER EVER wining a vote ever again because cities are more populated somehow WOULDN'T be tyranny?

KEKS BTFO

>>34038541
>Does your vote actually count if 7 people from the "electoral college" decide the outcome, no matter what?
This is why blue states turned red this election. Milennials did not give enough fucks to vote in blue states

>>34038541
Wrong board, unoriginal poster. You want >>>/pol/

>>34038894
This argument is fucking retarded though because we're all forced to pay either way. Either everyone is forced to pay for an insurance plan or everyone has to cover the cost for retards who refuse to give in to "tyranny" and then get into a car accident and (rightfully) cannot be denied care at the hospital. Prior to the passage of the ACA the latter was a point of contention for /pol/tards. ACA remedies that and now they bitch about "tyranny" of the former. It can't go both ways and no alternative is offered.

>>34039459
Privatize Insurance and Medicine and we could have the best with companies competing for the best and most cost-effective service.

Instead we have a government-sustained monopoly, which is why Aspirin at a hospitals costs fucking $300.