Help me get this straight /b/
Donald Trump won and apparently im the problem for not voting, but I live in california which is a state that Hillary won for electoral votes.
So my vote literally doesnt meant shit since she won California right? It doesnt matter how many people didnt vote in California specifically because she won enough votes to win the electoral votes.
So if thats the case then the people who didnt vote and are in states that Trump won, they are the problem here.
Am I right or am I missing something?
>>711845606
Define WON/WIN
no one won this election sept the 1%
you all lost
>>711845606
You're absolutely right, and that's exactly why the EC should be abolished.
People shouldn't have their votes weighted differently, the result is some people being completely disenfranchised.
>>711845606
ah average southern Californian, go back to the chimp outs or maybe study economics and government
>>711845606
Depends, voting is never bad to ensure it. If more liberals in Cali start having that mentality, then Cali will go to the Republicans. So it does matter. Go out and do your civic duty instead of spreading this stupid message
>>711845981
i think having a group of 500 or something people that have experiance in government and economy is a great failsafe from us selecting a bad leader
>>711845981
you dont understand the electoral college and its purpose
either stop talking about things you dont understand, or kys
thank you
>ps I didnt vote for trump so dont project your insecurities on me retard
>>711845606
God damn, dude. Why do you need this spelled out for you? Yes, Trump won more electoral votes.
>>711845981
get over the EC turbofag. you wouldn't be complaining about it if your favorite candidate won.
the EC doesn't disenfranchise anyone. simple majorities within states elect electors. electors are proportional to population plus two for senators. there's nothing unbiased or anti-democratic about it. if anything, it's removes the undue weight on they system from urban centers.
we live in a federal republic not a direct democracy, shitcock. don't like it, amend the constitution.
>>711845606
If you're state can be relied on as a straight ticket state, then yes. Your vote means nothing and never will. Unless you live in 15 swing voter state, maybe then your vote will mean something. Winning the presidency is really campaigning how much you care about the people in these key states while having little money and campaigns on the other states only to show the press that you're doing what you can all across the US.
If you want your state to be fought for, you need to be swing voter state. The same rules apply to any category that identifies you: black/hispanic/middle-class/female/LGBT/etc.
Being a straight ticket voter will guarantee that you're never represented by either side.
>>711846461
what undue urban weight? simply because someone chooses to live near more people than rurals doesn't make their vote worth any less
>>711845606
>wanted Hillary in
No, you are the problem
why people not voting clinton are problems? people have their righ to vote for trump or any other candidate. Assuming that people not voting should have voted clinton is very arrogant.
>>711846266
I obviously know the basics of it you fucking retard. I was only asking for confirmation since voting in general is dumb shit and isnt straight forward
>>711845606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfL5KwUuvMc SEXY VIDEO!
>>711846612
it doesn't make it worth any less. you still have to win simple majorities or pluralities in your state to advance a candidate.
the US system has safeguards to protect minority positions. the rural areas would get buttfucked even harder than they are now without the EC.
>not a trump voter
>>711845981
>the result is some people being completely disenfranchised.
That's how the entire middle of the country would feel if New York and California decided every election.
3 million illegal aliens voted for her
and she still lost
lmao @ her "life"
>>711845606
You're not the problem because you didn't vote, you're the problem because you're stupid.
>>711847159
>>711846916
the point of abolishing the EC is to remove state level winner-take-all voting. the only majority that should matter is the country as a whole.
>>711847098
this image is garbage. population density. just because half of americans choose to live in certain places doesn't mean they shouldn't get half of the voting power. 1:1 across the board. The simple fact is the EC gives more power to some, and less to others. It doesn't matter who is getting more/less, it should be equal.
>>711847427
It would still be a disgrace if we turned our back on what all our farmers etc from rural america want. Entire states would never have representation.
>>711847098
But why should that matter?
Just because the population density is lower, why should they have their votes weighed higher?
This doesn't give a comprehensive reason. Why should the amount of land mass enter the equation?
>>711847517
Now you're getting into opinion territory. While I agree with you, as I live in corn territory, our opinions shouldn't matter for this decision.
Yes, the Winner take all system is fucked up when one candidate can win the popular vote yet lost by 58 electoral votes.
>>711845606
No the problem is that you had the "choice" between a corupted and a coruptor i think the best that you could about that
>>711847672
That's an opinion too of course. And opinions are all we and to an extent even the founding fathers who put this system in place can have.
>>711847772
The founding fathers put into place a system that didn't bias certain states. The EC weighting system was added much later.
>>711847427
>the point of abolishing the EC is to remove state level winner-take-all voting. the only majority that should matter is the country as a whole.
You realize the Electoral College doesn't have to be winner-take-all, right? You could keep the EC and have proportional electors awarded.
Direct election of president is idiotic and gives even more weight to cities and states with large populations, particularly the wealthy/elite.
>>711845606
The problem is that voter turnout for Hillary in states where Trump won was pathetic. Obama was able to motivate far more people to the poles for his elections. Hillary didn't inspire anything but scorn, so far fewer voters gave enough of a shit to show up.
>>711848001
The latinos didn't rise up. The blacks didn't have any kind of record turn out either. I do wonder if Bernie could have at least swayed some of Trump's white working class.
>>711847692
The system makes sense, considering the country actually a federation of sovereign states. States vote based on their people, proportional to national population.
>>711846841
democratic turnout was far less. it's not arrogant, it's numbers.
>>711847981
It doesn't give any weight to anyone, that is the point. Also, the wealthy/elite make up a very small part of the population.
>>711847957
>. The EC weighting system was added much later.
It was in the original Constitution. It was intentionally designed to based on representation in Congress, which is allotted proportionally based on population plus two senators for each state.
>>711848196
>Direct election doesn't give any weight to anyone
you're an idiot
>>711847517
>>711847098
>>711846916
Well why don't we take it even further and give extra weight to black, hispanic, and asian votes, because they're minorities.
>That's how the entire middle of the country would feel if New York and California decided every election
>That's how the entire population of minorities would feel if whites decided every election
The electoral college is bullshit because the electors always choose the state majority anyway, they would get slaughtered by their parties if they voted the other way
>>711847427
The framers feared a direct democracy overriding the constitutional rights of others. It's described in the federalist papers and also explains why we need a 2/3rd votes to get things done.
It's also why you hear "..and to the Republic" instead of democracy, because it's not a direct one. It's possible we could change the framing of government if we had 2/3rds vote. We did during Obama's first term in office, they were the overwhelming majority for a time, and Obama while people did say Obama made no promise, he actually did. His words were: "to challenge the system". Of course, I keep hearing Republicans blocking everything, but no one addressed his first term where he did have 2/3rds of his party in office.
I don't know what to think of it. I guess if you want direct democracy, you won't find it here. But much of it is explained here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
>>711847981
>Direct election of president is idiotic and gives even more weight to cities and states with large populations
You mean it gives weight to a majority of the population as opposed to a minority?
The EC makes a lot of sense in the US w.r.t. the roles of the states in the federation, as very explicitly explained in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton et al.
>>711848418
That's a pretty shit analogy buddy. We don't ask our black population to produce our massive dairy demands without representation.
>>711848242
Sources, I'd like to be proven wrong on this.
>>711848331
Insults are the lowest form of argument broseph
>>711845606
shoulda voted stein u cunt
>>711848331
That's how the world works. In America there's more urban and suburban people that rural people, more whites than blacks or hispanics or asians, and more middle class than rich
>>711848591
Shit, you're right. Reps plus senators. Ok then.
>>711848591
>Sources, I'd like to be proven wrong on this.
US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Clause 3 is superseded by Amendment 12
>>711849198
Thanks bro. Found that myself as well. Never saw the bit about senators.
>>711848591
>>711848721
>>711849116
you know you niggers could read up on some shit before you start shitposting?
fuck the wiki articles are pretty clear and point you to the right sources, e.g. Federalist papers, for understanding why direct election doesn't occur.
>>711849357
I read all the time, but no one can be expected to know anything. I appreciate the chance to learn, and appreciate the user who corrected me.
>>711849565
*everything. not anything.
>>711849357
And I'm saying that's a bullshit reason, because there's plenty of other majority/minority situations that aren't protected the same way rural/urban is
>>711849357
People can't name more than three of their constitutional rights, you expect them to read the federalist papers? That's like telling Christians to read their Bible from start to end. You need to realize what you're able to do is asking for too much from others. If things don't go their way then they want to abolish what stood in their way, rules and reason be damned.
Think its safe to assume you aren't old enough to vote, thats why you didn't vote.
>>711845997
>study economics and government
>telling someone to do something trump has never done
>>711845883
The 1% won pretty handily, lol.
>>711849753
>agnostic
>read the bible
>old testament was kickass, new was garbage
>mfw i'm a jew i guess
>>711849827
>thinking a billion dollar business man has never studied economics and government
>>711849742
You have two problems, I think. The first is that you're under the illusion that you live in a direct democracy and not in a federal republic. The second is that you don't understand how a federal republic works and intends to distribute power.
>>711850000
>quads of truth
>>711845606
True, but 30 years ago, California was as red as texas. States always change and if too many people have your sentiment, Cali could easily be a battleground state
>>711847957
No dumbass, the EC has always been the number of representatives a state has in the senate and house. This was put in place specifically to give states with lower populations more power in the government, or depending on your interpretation an equal say in the government.
Your problem is that you believe the USA is one government. In actuality wee are comprised of 50 different governments deciding together on the leader of the federal government. This is why each state is winner take all, the citizens of each of the 50 governments vote on who they think the leader should be.
If you want each state to have equal or closer to equal opinions then redistribute the population to be equal between all states. This will force each state to have equal representation and equal numbers of EC votes.
>>711845606
>and apparently im the problem for not voting, but I live in california which is a state that Hillary won for electoral votes.
yes, you are the problem. If more people voted for our Lord and Savior Trump, maybe the bitch wouldn't have won in California either.
>>711850152
I know that now, dick. Read more thread sometime
>>711848087
I truly believe Bernie could have won. He might not have, but at least he was a passionate, sincere candidate with buckets of charisma. Hillary was just power-hungry. Bernie made the mistake of playing fair, and the DNC pooched him hard.
>>711845606
No you're right. Once a state has a majority, all other voters are useless.
>>711850011
What do you think about the Talmud? Have you read it? Because Judaism does continue after Christ, maybe you know this.
>>711850218
Glad you posted this. It helps further rational discourse and adds depth.
>>711845606
Well, you're not voting for just the presidency. There are several other very important amendments and other things, the president is just a part of the ballot. For example, commercial marijuana was made legal because enough people voted for that during the election. So really, the people make a lot of choices they don't know they can make
>>711850139
>States always change and if too many people have your sentiment, Cali could easily be a battleground state
This is what critics of the EC don't understand. It is way fucking easier to change a state than it is to play national-scale politics.
I'd argue that Democrats and third-party don't understand this anymore either. Everybody wants to win the big, high profile elections instead of doing the hard work of governing states and municipalities.
Conservatives have spent 40+ years playing small ball and now they own most electoral precincts in the country. People need to look to their example instead of trying to mount a fool's crusade to amend the Constitution to drop the Electoral College.
>>711845606
Welcome to the electoral college.
We need to get rid of the electoral college.
Fuck the smaller states!
>>711847672
>the only majority that should matter is the country as a whole.
This is the only opinion I see around here. The president isn't acting for "the people in the country as a whole", he is also negotiating treaties, which affect the nation as a collection of states, and many other similar activities.
>>711845606
No, you're right. It's those people's fault for not going out to vote.
>>711845606
Kinda OP, but at least you're not a Republican in CA or trying to vote Dem in a heavily red state.
Winner takes all for the electorals in most states. Electoral votes>popular vote. If you're in a state that is guaranteed to vote one way but you don't vote with it then your vote basically doesn't exist right now. Pretty sure a candidate can seriously win by one vote and take all 55 electoral votes your state has. That applies to all other states but 2, Nebraska and Maine.
The way I'd like to see it it the total number of electoral votes doubled and appropriately distributed and then mandate they must reflect popular vote as closely as possible by state.
That way it does actually matter AND you get better representation out of it. might also kill the idea of the swing state. In other words In consistently red Idaho Hillary would have gotten one electoral vote while trump Got 3. In consistently blue CA trump should have gotten 17 while Hillary would have taken 38. Third parties would also actually get electoral votes out of it. After doing that make it so whoever gets the most wins 270 or no.
The fun part is doing it this way still makes repeat voters (cheaters) basically worthless unless you get a fuckton of them.
Proper representation of as many Americans as possible is more important than winning.
>>711851011
>The president isn't acting for "the people in the country as a whole"
What? The president is the head of the executive branch of government. His job is execute and enforce federal law.
The president is currently overpowered though. Congress should rein in the office. Maybe the GOP will grow the nuts to do so during Trump.
>>711845606
I don't think the problem is your vote in particular, over a hundred million people did not vote. I can see why you choosed not to vote but it's really fucking retarded to defend your decision on the base that it would not matter. To me, and whoever else consider voting a duty, your guilt is escaping the democratic process, so the outcome of the election is irrelevant
>>711851224
>Pretty sure a candidate can seriously win by one vote and take all 55 electoral votes your state has.
Individual states decide how electoral votes are apportioned.
>>711847672
>Discredits an argument because it's an opinion
>Rebuttal with his own opinion
>>711850107
I am fully aware that it's a federal republic and not a direct democracy, and how a federal republic works. There is nothing in the constitution that says that all of a states electors go to the majority vote in that state. The electors are there to stop the people from electing a threat to the country. What the electoral college has become, is bullshit. It gives more weight to those areas with lower population density, and electors won't vote against their party anyway
If you want your vote to matter live in a swing state, vote with your party in a state it's guaranteed to win, or vote third party while enough others do if you live in one of those guaranteed states and don't like the usual winner.
For third parties 5% popular vote actually matters.
>>711851224
This will still cause candidates to only care about only cities.
>>711851604
The problem is all but two of them roll winner takes all. They shouldn't even have a choice is what I want. As far as my thoughts on this are concerned it MUST reflect popular vote.
>>711845997
Ah yes California, a state that pays for most of the flyover states. We know nothing about economics. Please help us.
>>711851855
That's not why the electoral college was created. It was created so that the electors can keep a majority of idiots from voting in someone who's a threat
>>711851688
>There is nothing in the constitution that says that all of a states electors go to the majority vote in that state
You're right, but that is decided solely by the individual states and not at a federal level. There's absolutely no reason why your state, or any other, couldn't decided to apportion electoral votes differently. That's not a flaw in the EC.
>electors won't vote against their party anyway
The emerge of regular faithless electors would be the death knell of the republic.
>>711851898
>As far as my thoughts on this are concerned it MUST reflect popular vote.
EC does reflect the popular vote. The candidate with the most votes gets the electors, excepting two states.
It's not as if the EC is independent of the popular vote.
>>711850000
And there you have proof.
Amazing how 50% of the country makes up that 1% that won.
>>711851855
Better than only caring about a handful of states. Would shake up the whole system. Currently there is zero value in candidates campaigning in places they know they'd for sure lose with winner takes all.
>>711852009
According to the Constitution, the electoral college actually has the authority to ignore the people's vote I think. I know it won't happen, but how quickly would the E.C. be abolished if they elected Hillary out of fucking nowhere?
>>711845981
The electoral collge was made for this exact reason.
You are just mad because it didn't go your way and you are a child used to getting everything it wants.
If the election was ment to be won by the popular vote then it would be. But it isn't and it wasn't and it never will be.
Cry more
>>711845606
Didn't read thread but you can still vote for state and local elections and make a difference. Many counties are red if you want to change them blue you need to vote.
It's a good thing that happened to the dems. Dumpster fire defeat will cause them to pull their heads out of their corporate donors asses and run progressive policies.
Hope the anti establishment Trump fans will realize they were fooled again with the people Trump is bringing into the whitehouse. Hopefully not too much damage will be done to the environment over these next 4 years. We will see.
Go vote next time.
>>711852086
>As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
That is literally why the electors are there, so that they can be faithless if necessary
States apportioning electoral votes as a group isn't a direct part of the electoral college, but it's definitely relevant, and it's the part people want gone
>>711845606
nah fam you good
however you're part of the problem that contributed to Trump not completely humiliating her
>>711850303
He would have because he offered change.
>>711852509
>electoral college actually has the authority to ignore the people's vote I think
No. There's just no requirement that the vote with the popular vote. That's not the same as having authority to ignore.
Again, the individual states decide how electors are elected and the rules of their conduct (pledged or not). If you don't like that your state's electors are not apportioned to the state popular vote, lobby to have your state laws changed.
>>711852709
>That is literally why the electors are there, so that they can be faithless if necessary
Yeah, but you don't want faithless electors as a regular practice. It would destabilize the entire system. Outside the extraordinary, faithless electors should be (and are) exceedingly rare.
>States apportioning electoral votes as a group isn't a direct part of the electoral college, but it's definitely relevant, and it's the part people want gone
Fine, but that happens because of individual state laws, not the constitution. That's the whole point of our federal system. The states should decide that.
>>711847517
At the expense of turning our backs on what the majority of Americans in major cities want? Go fuck yourself. There's no winning here.
>>711853315
>There's no winning here.
There is. You just have to balance the interests of the masses, regions, and states in the process so that majority expresses its will without running amuck and trampling everyone else.
We do this with the Electoral College.
>>711851982
Kek.
>hur-dur, California is a waste! Loser people and stupid hippies!
Oh, and 6th largest economy in the world.
>>711854010
People forget about that.
>>711852283
Winner takes all that 48/50 states use does not reflect popular vote appropriately. It means just under half of a state's votes could be for a specific candidate but that candidate gets zero electoral votes. Popular vote should not mean you take it all, it should mean you take more electoral votes than the one who "lost" but the other guy still gets the votes the minority cast to him. Political minorities get fucked in the pooper across the board.
Example election, 5 million votes flat.
If I were to get 2,495,000 (49.9%) but my competitor got 2,505,000 (50.1%) then unless a change is made on the spot I get zero electoral votes in that state and the people who supported me effectively have zero representation because my competitor just got 100% of the take. How it should work is we split the electoral votes and my competitor gets the odd vote assuming the number of votes available is an odd number.
If I'm running Republican and the state is California or any other almost always blue state (or vice versa) you can bet your ass they won't change shit for me or my half of the state's worth of supporters. I should be taking 27 votes while my competitor takes 28 but I instead get zero because !winner takes all! is a thing.
Take away the state's ability to choose how they are allotted and force them to split the votes along popular vote forcing accurate representation of the nation.
>>711845606
Each state should only get 1 electoral vote. 1 vote and 1 vote only. You need to win 26 to become president.
>>711847517
That's what the senate is for
>>711845981
The EC exists so that states like California and New York can't control the president every election.
>Some rhetoric about how we're a united country, so all votes should be equal
So are you also going to push for universal voter IDing and other anti voting fraud legislation? A lot of the states where Clinton won do NOT ID voters in any way. You show up, you cast a vote, no one every confirmed you are who you are claiming to be, or that you are registered to vote, or that you're at the right polling station (something meant to prevent multiple votes)
Not only that, but a lot of the lead in New York and California comes from people who, either seeing the EC meant their vote would be meaningless, or afraid of the backlash of other people if they voted Trump, supported Trump completely but didn't vote.
Finally, that would be tyranny of the majority. The EC exists to protect people and states that have smaller populations. If the president promises to fix a minor food shortage in California that would resolve itself within a year by using, for instance, negative tariffs for imported food (that means rather than paying a tax, getting money just for bringing food into the country) then that means most of the midwestern states will see a sudden and huge drop in employment, foreclosure on farms, and that sort of thing because of this legislation.
Therefore, because we went with what the most populous state wanted (which would often happen with pure popular vote), all the people in the other states would always be pushed to the side, not as important, not worth offering promises to, because the population is 'too small to make a difference'. That's why we have the EC.
>>711845606
you are a faggot
>>711853251
>you don't want faithless electors as a regular practice
and they aren't regularly faithless
generally there are 2 votes in the electoral college
the first all electors vote how their states went
if there is a victor it ends there
if not, then there is a second vote and the electors vote their consience
which generally goes by the party of the congressmen that they represent as they are selected by them, or the electors from a state decide to split their votes according to the portion of popular votes each candidate received
if there is a victor in that vote then it ends there
if not, then the electoral college generally declares that they cannot decide a winner and the decision goes to the house of representatives
the representatives generally vote based on how their state voted in the first vote in the house
if a there is a victor it ends there
if not then there is another vote, and another, ad nausem until the house declares a new president
that is why there are 3 months between the general election and the beginning of the president's term of office
>>711848087
Not sure Bernie really appealed to the working-class. Hillary actually alienated them, so he wouldn't have done any worse.
Biden would have been able to hold Pennsylvania and possibly Ohio, though he would have had the same problem interesting minority voters.
>>711854367
>gimme direct democratic election of Pres & VP
Nope.
Fuck your tyranny of the majority bullshit. You're only mad because you lost.
>>711854440
They wouldn't control the president every election. The closeness of the popular vote proves that.,
>>711847628
Because the US is not a single country. It is an union of states. Guess what would happen if 2 states decided the president for the entire union, for forever? The union would collapse. You have shitheads in California calling for secession already this very election.
The EC is a compromise made with the less populous states, to get them to join and stay in the union.
>>711845606
They do keep record of your effort and it will be rewarded greatly. I voted Romney and got shitted on because the nigger won. So when you vote be sure they get in or else you become a target for the opposing party with the power and advantage over you when they get the win
>>711854403
Because the several million people in Commiefornia should have the same vote as the 5 people in Wyoming right?
>>711854849
I didn't lose though anon, fuck Hillary.
It's not "tyranny of the majority". That's literally what this would fix. Right now the majority gets everything and the minority nothing. With what I want the minority gets their damn votes instead of being steamrolled because Commiefornia is blue or Idaho is Red.
>>711855085
>being steamrolled because Commiefornia is blue
When's the last time CA decided an election?
When's the last time CA went GOP?
>http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/timeline/
Go learn something before you speak.
>>711855085
>Right now the majority gets everything and the minority nothing.
You realize the EC only has to do with the President and Vice President right, which is a single branch of government.
As Obama's two terms have shown, having the White House doesn't mean shit if Congress cockblocks you. You're putting way to much emphasis on a single aspect of the system.
>>711854933
But as soon as pure population means you have more sway, cities and states have more reason to spend on attracting new citizens and building bigger cities. Who has the money to do that the best? The states that already have a huge taxable population. As has already been seen in California, legislation can drive out the opposition party without being in any way illegal.
But again: The purpose of the EC is to give fair representation of all people. Farmers make up less than 5% of the population, but if we always screw them over to offer better legislation to urban centers, our farms would foreclose, no one would want to enter the farming field, and we'd have massive food shortages.
All I can really say though, is that the country was never intended to be a direct democracy. Even voting in general for president didn't happen until after the country was already around for a little while.
But the biggest reason for not going with majority vote is inconsistent voting laws. In a large number of states, California included, you don't need to prove who you are. You come in, say you should vote here, get handed a slip no questions ask, turn it in, and leave. What's stopping illegal immigrants or multiple voting from swaying the popular vote.
Not to mention Clinton received a number of fraudulent votes during the Democratic primaries.
>>711855371
>When's the last time CA decided an election?
That's not really relevant is it? We're talking about representation not how this might make the other guy win more gooder.
>When's the last time CA went GOP?
Pull your head out of your ass for a second and realize what I'm saying here.
Trump took 32.9% of the vote in CA with 3,329,627 total according to the shitbags at NY Times. He should have gotten 17 of those electoral votes. Meanwhile here in Idaho The lying bitch took 27%. She should have got her one vote here. Instead republicans in CA and Democrats in ID got fucked because WINNER TAKES FUCKING ALL.
>>711854440
>that would be tyranny of the majority.
vs tyranny of the minority what is provided by the EC.
Did you know that a vote in Montana is almost 4 times as much "worth" as a vote in Texas?
Worst case scenario you only need 21% of the popular vote to elect a president.
>>711853251
The apportionment is still the part that people like least. Just because they don't know that it's not part of the EC doesn't mean that's not what they're talking about when they say they want the electoral college gone
>>711854849
The electors themselves solve the problem of tyranny of the majority, not apportioning all of a state's electors to that state's majority
>>711846220
Yeah lets see how well that statement holds up in december!
>>711845981
>You're absolutely right, and that's exactly why the EC should be abolished.
Actually, now that Republicans control the entire government, it would be more productive and fair to all if the Democrat party were completely abolished instead.
>>711855719
That would only happen if congress had their heads so far up their asses that they couldn't see what they were doing would fuck over the farms, and in turn the lack of food would fuck over the urban areas
>>711845606
I'm a HERO
KYS faggot scum go look at your Clkinton pedophile emails
>You are the scum of the planet
>>711856048
I'm 100% fine with the EC the way it is.
My point is, people need to bitch at their state legislators if they want to change the way electors apportioned relative to the state popular vote.
The fact is, most critics want no EC and just direct election of the president, but only because their candidate lost.
>>711856349
And while we're at it lets abolish the EPA and get rid of all regulations on businesses, because it's not like the environment or the consumers matter
>>711856419
Oh, because no one has ever put through what they've known to be shitty legislation in exchange for money and/or elections. Just read a couple of the laws passed by Congress in the last decade. 400+ pages of info used to hide spending as much as 100x as much money as it would normally have cost to meet the goal, because of everything extra tacked on. They spend tax money to make themselves and their friends richer or to return favours.
It's unlikely that they'd outright close farms, but what would be likely (in the situation mentioned in a farther up reply) is that price limits would be placed on produce. Now, how often does Congress update their legislation? Not very often, because no one agrees on what to do. So you could, potentially, have the value of the dollar drop in half while the produce still has to be sold at the same price.
Clearly not the intended affect, but that would still be enough lost money to foreclose farms.
>>711851982
I can guarantee you don't pay for shit in Kansas.
You can't argue with a liberal don't waste your time
>>711856031
They're worth the same amount within their state to decide who their electors should vote for. These numbers are reflection of the population of the state, plus two for senate votes. Are you also pushing that we should dissolve the senate, leaving just the house, since the senate also offers 'unfair' vote weighting?
American voting system is shit.
Are the electoral votes in states ever recalculated? Weren't they calculated based on population? It's hard for me to believe the population ratios of each state is the same from even as recently as 8 years ago.
The EV's for each state should be recalculated each election.
>>711845981
Nobody was disenfranchised in Cali except for the 1/3 of Cali voters that went trump. As far as popular vote deciding is concerned, if that were the case sure you may not have disenfranchised a few hundred thousand in Cali but you would have disenfranchised millions in the flyover states.
>>711845606
>>711857052
Cali is a net positive for the federal government. Most red states are a net negative which means they are takers from the pot Cali fills. Most red states are federal welfare states. How's that for personal responsibility.
Article II, section I, of the US Constitution was written specifically in order to protect the citizens of this country from Democrats who seek to become dictators and create a single-party system of government.
>>711856877
Representatives are elected by district now though, farmers would still be represented the same as they are now if the way electors was apportioned changed
>>711857377
There are only 538 electoral votes. However, the more populous state is assigned more votes. So it does scale with population. There is a minimum however of at east 3 per states, so smaller states still hold certain amount of influence, even if it is not populous.
>>711857669
Article II, section I, of the US Constitution was written specifically in order to protect the citizens of this country from Republicans who seek to become dictators and create a single-party system of government.
asshole
>>711857377
they are recalculated after every census
which occurs every 10 years
generally congress passes a re-appropriation (moving representative seats) act 1-2 years after a census is completed
and electors are equal to the number of congressmen a state has
so 2 from senators (except D.C. because fuck D.C. it shouldn't have any electors, senators, or representatives. become a state if you want rights)
and 1 or more from representatives who are based on population
>>711857377
I'm pretty sure it changes every 10 years after they do the census
>>711857672
Except farmers are a very small portion of the population. If the president promises to fix food shortages by the aforementioned price limits, and then gets voted into office based on that, it will have more than enough force to easily be passed. Then, like with a lot of laws, it won't be updated nearly often enough to meet the changes to the economy and country.
>>711845606
The same can be said for republican that dont vote in cali. They know there vote will never count so they dont bother. That is why the popular vote doesnt really matter. If popular vote decided the election, the turnout would be widely different, as would the presidential campaign. They would campaign entirely in populated areas for more bang for the buck, which would lead more to the fact that big cities decide everything in the country. Our founding fathers, luckily, were smarter than that.
>>711857672
let us look at the wonderful representative districts of Utah
3 of the 4 have some portion inside Salt Lake County, and their populations inside Salt Lake outnumbers their populations outside Salt Lake
so even though Utah is a very rural state
3 of its 4 representatives are decided by an urban minority
if it was split by urban vs rural, Salt Lake would have 2 representatives and the rest of the state would have 2
thank you party beneficial Jerrymandering
>>711857616
Yet Cali goes bankrupt every couple years.
>>711857927
I really don't think the president has quite that much power. I mean trump said that he would create mandatory registration for all muslims, but there's no way he'd actually be able to do that
>>711857105
>Are you also pushing that we should dissolve the senate
thanks for staying on topic, shows that it is worth haveing a discussion with you!
The senate is clearly there to represent the states, while the house should represent the ppl.
But electing the highest position in the country and then having millions of votes not count propperly is stupid!
>>711845606
Your vote didn't matter. The people who didn't vote vote's don't matter.
Hi, I'm Bob Lob, head of my own private firm Bob Lob Law, and I can straighten out any of your questions.
Even with the media reporting fake poll numbers and Democrats convincing millions of deceased voters to vote, millions of illegal aliens to vote, and with millions of Democrat voters who voted multiple times, Hillary still lost.....LOL!!
>>711858318
I agree that gerrymandering is shit, I was just saying that congresses ability to push shitty legislation wouldn't change if we changed the way electors are apportioned
>>711858460
But it's the same system. The reason I bring up the senate is because that's what the electoral vote counts are 'skewed' by. If you believe the senate isn't something that should be gotten rid of, and recognize that as being the protection of the state, then why is protection of the state such an absurd 'insult' in choosing the president, when we are NOT a democracy?
>>711850065
Proof hes a billion dollar businessman please.
>>711845606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
>>711847098
I don't understand what that image is trying to get across. So half the nation's population voted for something, and the other half voted against. What does land mass have to do with it?
>>711853315
There is. Give each state the same power and representation; as in the "United States". Soundd familiar?
>>711858733
The count of electoral college votes isn't skewed by the fact that the senate exists, dummy. If we changed the way the electoral college functioned and got entirely rid of the votes that correspond to senators, the U.S. Senate would not magically vanish.
And it would STILL be skewed because North Dakota and Wyoming don't have enough population to count for one congressman from California.
It's THAT skewed.
Here look at this. do your research instead of sitting on your ass watching TV! There is a specific reason the AC exists. Duh.. This isn't a democracy, that would mean mob rule.
>>711858386
There's a lot of stuff people thought Obama could never do, but he just did it anyway. The difference is nobody tried to stop Obama, and the whole world will try to stop Trump. Sure, the Republicans did what they could to stop him in Congress, but no one said anything too loudly when he did shit by executive order. Nobody wanted to look like a racist for directly saying Obama couldn't do something. Nobody is going to care about Trump, though. Quite the opposite, they will go out of their way to directly oppose him.
>>711847159
KEK
Why are you reading so far into this? Libs and Cons are going to complain and shit throw for the rest of forever at anyone who doesn't apply to the establishment they represent.
>>711859094
So we're back to Tyranny of the Majority. All you want is total abolition of the EC for a direct vote of the President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
I will say this though: I hate both candidates, but if Hillary had won, she'd be our first impeached president, and she would screw over any other female trying to run for decades. She stood to win because she promised things to the over entitled. It's situations like this that led to the EC.
>>711857899
>>711857834
>>711857682
Wow! Informative and helpful! Thanks e-friends!
>>711859343
I'm sure you meant first impeached FEMALE president.
>>711859502
Nope. Bill Clinton was impeached by one part of Congress. That's not enough, so he was never impeached. The only other person who stood a chance at being impeached was Nixon, and he resigned before that could happen.
>>711859586
Both Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached. They were just acquitted by the senate.
>>711859343
>she'd be our first impeached president
her husband was impeached
and I believe Grant and one other president were too
however only 1 president has been convicted after impeachment
I think you don't know what impeachment is
>a representative says the president did something he shouldn't have
>the entire house looks at the evidence and votes as to whether there is enough evidence that the president did something he shouldn't have
>if that vote passes the president is impeached, in normal courts it is called in indictment
>then the senate looks at the evidence and votes as to whether the president actually did what the house accused him of
>if that vote passes the president is convicted and removed from office
>>711845606
I voted for Trump. Suck my dick. But you might like it so don't. Every county in the US should have one vote. Not states, they should do counties. You can't drag everyone in the nation into your retarded 17 trillion dollar debt and 700 quadrillion unfunded liabilities. Fuck your dumbass nigger and his unlimited credit card.
>>711845606
if you didnt vote, then you just have to shut the fuck up. Even if it wouldnt have made any change to the actual result...
also clinton's are fucker
>>711859783
>>711859805
You're right, I'm mistaken. I should have said she'll be the first one removed from office following impeachment.
>>711848418
>The electoral college is bullshit because the electors always choose the state majority anyway
Gore would like to have words with you.
The non-partisan group who is monitoring votes has found that over 3 MILLION of Hillary's votes are from illegal aliens, and there may be an additional 4 million once all the counting is done.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24630-vote-fraud-monitoring-group-says-three-million-noncitizens-voted-in-presidential-election
>>711859343
For one thing, you don't understand what impeachment is or appear to know how many presidents have been impeached. I mean, you're flapping your gums about it, but you don't understand it.
Also, when you say that modifying the electoral college means we have to get rid of the senate, and you're dumb and wrong, you shouldn't then go on to say that modifying the electoral college is the same thing as tyranny of the majority.
For one thing, it's a classic case of reductio ad absurdum. You don't understand that. You can look it up, but you won't.
For another thing, you linked to Tyranny of the Majority. You don't understand it. If you read the link you posted, you could understand it, but you won't. It doesn't mean exactly what the words translate directly to.
For another thing, you don't understand what tyranny is. It doesn't mean the same thing as "stuff fatty doesn't like." There is no definition of tyranny that would apply to the majority of the population electing the chief executive and head of state.
You're dumb. You're not a philosopher. You don't understand this material. Stop talking about politics.
>>711858733
>The reason I bring up the senate is because that's what the electoral vote counts are 'skewed' by
So there are 3 senators (cause that is the amount of votes every state no matter how tiny it is gets as a baseline)... oh no wait there aren't!
>>711858733
>when we are NOT a democracy
Cause the US IS a democracy (but just not a direct democracy).
The USA is a constitutional federal republic with representative democracy.
I know many disagree here, but most republics are cathegorised as a version of a democracy.
>>711858733
>why is protection of the state such an absurd 'insult' in choosing the president
Cause the USA is a republic with a president as head of state, which is elected by the ppl and should represent all ppl equally, which is not the case in the US due to the electoral collage having the consequence that some peoples votes has 4 times as much "weight" as others.
Therefor you can elect a president with 21% of the votes.
>>711858375
Like Trump. Oh I mean almost bankrupt like Cali.
>>711845883
You know you don't sound smart when you spout conspiracy nonsense. It's why your dad and everyone else considers you an annoying faggot. But mah wtc, Obama will nuke the USA, Fema camps, and my water filter. You got better ideas than the 1% that employ you and make society that feeds almost everyone in the world. I doubt you can even make compost.
>>711859103
so you choose minority rule over majority rule?
You complain that in a democracy (btw the US is still a representative democracy) 51% can decide for the other 49%, while the electoral collage let's 21% decide who is the president while 79% don't matter!
Makes total sense!
>>711860359
Trump never "went bankrupt" in that sense. He just filed bankruptcy, and rightly so, on businesses that weren't producing. He did it a handful of times and had several hundred ventures be successful. If you were memeing, good job. But no. I meant actually running out of money or at least coming close to it. Which California seems to do every couple years.
>>711860679
So was I wrong in saying almost bankrupt for both Cali and Trump?
>>711860899
Yes because trump never ran out or almost ran out of money. California does it on an almost regular basis.
>>711860679
If they would stop giving wetbacks free shit it wouldn't be a problem. Liberals always complain college should be free. Deport the wetbacks and stop feeding them and you could have free college.
>>711859343
>So we're back to Tyranny of the Majority
so you favor Tyranny of the minority?
Also even without the electoral collage, the US is still a constitutional republic and therefore not "Tyranny of the majority"!
>>711860116
>You're right, I'm mistaken.
are we still on /b/?
anyone?
:)
>>711861178
In your response to 116 yeah I felt the same way. Like holy shit
>>711858772
his assets are literally standing in cities around the world
It is an unbelievably amazing feeling knowing that Trump is going to be our next President and is going to attempt to fix the damage that's been done and make this country what it use to be.
>>711846461
Unless oddly you live in DC in which case you get no senators because your not a state and when you try to become one the republican congress tells you to go take your liberal voting tendencies and fuck off... lol
>>711861150
Of they would stop giving free shit to anyone that doesn't deserve it, stop needlessly regulating firearms and paying millions in that enforcement, and stop passing senseless feefee based regulation that spends more than it takes in they could probably break even at least. You don't hear of many other states going bankrupt every couple years.
>>711861150
All the welfare given to Latinos wouldn't pay for college for everyone. You'll have to cut welfare to whites to get that kind of money. Better yet, just legalize weed and tax it to pay for education. Would be a funny contradiction.
>>711861636
Many of the states are net negative which means they take money from the federal government to stay afloat. That's perpetual bankruptcy.
>>711861636
Just end coal, oil and farm subsidies and you can pay for most things. That would stop them from getting free shit they don't deserve.
>>711847427
what you want is a true democracy, you sir are an idiot
>>711845606
The problem with you not voting is pretty much all the propositions on the ballets. As for elected officials your vote isn't worth shit thanks to Gerrymandering. There are only about 12 states which determine the president, and the rest it doesn't matter that much.
>>711845606
No, fuck you you piece of shit. You have to fucking vote, asshole.
>>711860116
>>711861178
>>711861402
But I like it, to be able to admit and learn from mistakes is important and shows you are the bigger person!
>>711846841
It does not matter who you vote for
you do not matter if you don't vote
>pick 2
>>711845606
correct
>>711845606
you should have got on one of those Shillary buses and voted in 3 other states
>>711845606
It's flawed logic.
What if something crazy had happened and somehow California became a swing state?
Clinton was projected to have like an 80% chance to win Virginia but then lost it.
If people had paid less attention to the polls then perhaps more likely Clinton voters might have voted.
So basically, just fucking vote. Doesn't matter what state you're in. Better safe than sorry.
And anyway, you're adding your voice to the stats.
Also, even in California, your vote counts toward the popular vote. So, like in this election, it helps make the case that the President doesn't have as much of a mandate from the people to implement their platform.
>>711862542
True. I'm 402. And subsequently the guy who mentioned Johnson. Yeah. It's better to admit when you're wrong and learned something. I've learned a few things ITT too.
>>711862206
Then prices shoot up as they pass the saving to you. It's why a loaf of bread is a dollar, gas is 1.79 a gallon, and a bag of sugar is $3. Anyone who truly believes subsidies should be removed must be very misinformed. It stabilizes the market to avoid yearly spikes and drops. What do you know about grain trading? How about a large 1700 acre farm with a $1200 a month fuel bill? Subsidies are good, why do you think the Republicans support it even though it's a very socialist/communist system, tbh
>>711862274
This.
/thread
>>711845606
>>711845606
Well, you could argue that by voting for her, even in California, you increase the lead she would have had in the popular vote, which could lend credence to her current efforts to persuade electoral college members to vote for her.
>>711862962
OK guys shut it down!
This 12 year old just closed the thread!
>Shut it down now, democracy was solved today by post number 711862962
>>711862926
4 billion tax dollars a year to the richest companies on earth is a good idea? We pay them to take oil off us soil and sell it elsewhere. The deals with Saudi Arabia and other oil countries is what keeps the price of oil down.
>>711862926
Republicans are happy to forget about how popular social programs are socialist.
Heaven forbid we remove the stress of healthcare expenses from people's lives.
Ridiculously over-powered military, sure. Helping other people not die though? Crooked socialism. (Unless it's somebody they know; then suddenly they're for whatever liberal measure will help). Fucking Republicans.
Dems are also shit.
>>711863190
Pretty sure democracy was solved on 11/8.
>>711862926
Also, many farm subsidies are for corn. It was a quick fix that is outdated.
Have you been attacked? If so then I believe you have the right to retaliate if your life is endanger. But IDK Just dont riot and try and stop the riots.
>>711863027
I was a liberal and then I grew up and had a family to support and became conservative real fuckin quick. That's about as "woke" as I'm gonna get before I die.
>>711847098
the grey states shouldnt allowed to be part of the election. only the blue should elect the new president. because in the grey are nearly no people, so we need mind them cuz the niggers there arent important
>>711863421
tell that to the fucking protestors in my town.
Those fucking asshole covered every fucking inch of my campus in anti-trump messages
># notmypresident
>#muslimlivesmatter
>grab this pussy, trump!
>make racists afraid again
oh, also they stopped the freeway for a few hours. Hope no one is going anywhere important.
>>711864050
But there are more niggers in the blue area and more non niggers in the grey.
>>711863947
I was conservative until I was about 2 years out of collage and learned more about the rest of the world which made me liberal/libertarian. Having kids made me more progressive as I prefer a more educated and healthy population to live with. But different strokes for different fags.
>>711845606
You are right, your vote doesn't mean shit.
California was safely Clinton, so some there voted for a third party candidate, hoping that they would reach 5%; they didn't.
Nope it doesn't matter if you were going to vote for one of the two retards in the major parties.
Also the electoral college would work much better if we didn't have a two party system. We were never meant to have a two party system. The founding fathers specifically said that we should not have only two parties.
Lastly, neither Trump nor Clinton won the majority of the country. They each won around 27 percent. So if we wanted to go off of majority then no one has won yet.
>>711864494
white rednecks also count as niggers
different skin color, but same soul
>>711864872
You're thinking white trash smoking meth in trailer parks. That meme is old and is a very small minority of whites in general. Most rednecks are typically contributing members of society and some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. Not to mention jacked up trucks, hundreds of acres of land, and safes on top of safes full of guns aren't exactly cheap.
>>711860298
Haha you could only win with 21 percent of the vote if you barely won major states and lost all the smaller ones by 100 percent.
>>711864872
>>711865141
Also that being said if you account hard working rural folk in with niggers the problem isn't rednecks. It's likely that you're just a panty waisted bitch that thinks you're superior for having an accounting degree while you sip a iced soy chai tea latte while reading "curled mustache weekly" and frequently consider being an active bisexual.
>>711846852
>you fucking retard
>I was only asking for confirmation
Pick one, faggot. sage
>>711864551
Opposite for me. Seeing the rest of the world and going to college turned me into a hardline Trump supporter. Mexicans coming here and DEMANDING we change for them. Muslims, fleeing terrorists and trying to warn us Shria law is horrible. EU robbing poor people in Africa of food. Amd Democrats who say nice things and give you things, bit nothing to actually help you. I pay 1/3rd of my pay check to taxes but my buddy pays 1/4 of his because I make $100 more than he does, but pay a few thousand more over the year. Crime is rampant in rhe city a few miles from here and they want to take away my guns AND cut my police deartment in half in the suburbs....yeah fuck liberals.
>>711863279
17 trillion tax dollars on a ?
>>711846461
>doesn't disenfranchise anyone
>black voters 13% of nation and 88% clinton
>mfw if no black people voted no states would've flipped red
I'm sure black people are feeling very franchised right now.
>>711845606
you make no sense
>>711861588
Thats not why DC shouldnt become a State
>>711867670
Not him but I think Cali should secede and D.C. become a state. We lose the faggots and we don't have to change our flag.
>>711845883
nigger
>>711845981
nigger
>>711845997
nigger>>711846208
nigger>>711846208
nigger>>711846220
nigger>>711846232
nigger>>711846266
nigger>>711846461
nigger>>711846525
nigger>>711846612
nigger>>711846839
nigger>>711846841
nigger>>711846852
nigger>>711846865
nigger>>711846916
nigger>>711847098
nigger>>711847159
nigger>>711847361
nigger>>711847390
nigger
>>711867986
What about Puerto Rico?
>>711847672
nigger
>>711868061
fuck them
It's always the same backwards states choosing the president every fucking year. We might as well just let only people in Ohio and Florida choose our presidents from now on since it always comes down to them..
>>711868061
Guy you replied to. Any territory would suffice if Cali seceded. I just don't want to have to change our flag. So if they don't I don't want a new state.
while i dont agree entirely with the way votes are weighted after this election ive grown to like it more not saying i am happy with the outcome, happier than the alternative just due to trump having to learn how the system works will take time. however seeing how areas voted with the EC gone entire elections will be won off of the larger cities throughout the US more rural area wouldnt have a voice and might not benefit the same from policies being introduced
all in all i dont like the whole president system and i think states should focus more on their individual representatives and have term limits introduced
