Oh vey

the electoral college stops that from habbening

Attached: 491px-Americanpepe.png (491x599, 109K)

or where to drop bombs... only takes 57 of them.

I think the electoral system is good, what you burgers don't have is more diverse political parties... You have 2 parties that fight each other forever i can't even call that democracy...

No shit dude. 3rd parties will get bash by dems.

Attached: D5CD8C9A-4EB9-4051-9125-BDD3174FC1B5.jpg (720x733, 113K)

we aint a democracy you dunce. we are a republic. and the republicans are all that matter

Californians aren't people.

It has never been a democracy

For fucks sake, North Korea wil probably have that many bombs in 10 or 15 years....
DO IT KIMMY
ERADICATE THE SHITLIBS

>US
>a democracy
You poor, irrelevant little country, you...

Let's change the name to the "electoral STEM degree" and maybe the left will ignore it.

THIS
When people start massing up into small areas they get more control over their state.
Electoral College makes sure that the smaller states and counties are represented and not drowned out.

Attached: cali.jpg (649x650, 55K)

this is exactly why we have it you nigger

Because people in cities vote like retards and fuck up the whole system, as our founders knew from their classical looks at Rome and Ancient Greece.

I know this is probably troll post, but people slamming the electoral college should realize that the founders designed it this way in the founding documents to ensure that the opinions of the most populous states didn't dominate, as its the United States and not designed as one dominant, federal entity.

Time to abolish California.

Attached: KekWillsIt.jpg (400x400, 32K)

Shitbag mud invaders can't vote, faggot. I know, that makes it harder for you to extract gimmedats to feed your sewage monkeys. Just understand that under any circumstance this always ends the same way--sewage monkeys starve.

Because it's collectivist.

You're saying this group of people will have the same voting power as that group of people.

You should be saying each individual has the same voting power as each other individual.

Imagine if we gave blacks 8 times the voting power as whites just to prevent tyranny of majority by balancing the voting power of the black and white populations.

I was not aware of this and just saged. I found your post helpful. Have a good night brother you deserve it.

>Giving people more or less voting power based on communities that have other forms of representation based on the same borders
>Exactly the same as race, because all of our laws needs to be in respect to race and races should have their own representation in government at all.
Boggin the noggin

You literally just gave Hamilton's argument FOR the electoral college

California literally wouldn't survive without the food provided by other states in the USA
Piss off mate

Attached: productivity.png (539x334, 25K)

Electoral college exists to prevent tyranny of the majority.

For instance, you have 3 voting parties: A, B, and C.

A and B vote to tske away the life, liberty, and wealth of C.

A and B are California and New York respectively, C is everyone else in America.

Make enough sense to you third-world idiots?

Doesn't matter, because fuck you.

Well then his argument sucks. You shouldn't abandon the spirit of one person one vote just to artificially balance voting populations. Like I said, it's collectivism.

The entities in play are states, not the individuals. We are a union of sovereign nations.

youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0
youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
>INB4 pragerU

And that gives some people 100 times as much say in who the president will be as others. Because those people are typically rural, it looks awfully a lot like a callback to the old days when landowners were given more power.

One person one vote only works with land owning males, because everyone else is a human-imposter. Anyone who does not become a land owner by 18 is lazy and useless, and women vote entirely with emotion, not logic or long-tern critical thought.

Speak of the devil, it's a landowner!

because people who live in different parts of the country have different needs, desires, cultures, and lifestyles, and they need to be represented. Imagine if All of American life was dictated by 5 or 6 of the largest cities.

wow Trump won a bunch of corn fields and desert counties

Hillary won the popular vote.

Yup, super easy if you're a productive member of society.

Owning land is tantamount to the age of majority.

If you do not own lamd you a functionally a child and should be treated as such.

>typically
I believe the electoral votes is in proportion to the population size and is adjusted accordingly. This is also why we have a Senate.

If you just switch to popular vote, it will adjust itself automatically and be exact one to one.

If you got rid of the senate, you could get rid of an entire branch of government. Either way you would quickly find out why this rapidly descends into chaos and civil war breaks out.

because we're a Republic and our founders have some common sense. I'll be damn if commiefornians dictate the future of my country. they've destroyed their state and turned it into a Latin American hellhole. in a just world California would be under a Military governor and it's residents not allowed to vote

It's not a popularity contest memeflag.

Attached: 220px-Muhammad_Ali_NYWTS.jpg (220x275, 9K)

Do you even have any idea how many people live in the US? A direct democracy DOES NOT WORK. Voters cannot stay informed

This is actually a good argument, but it also applies to other demographic splits, not just rural/city.

Like I said before, what would you do/say if we were in a world where we were giving blacks 8 times the voting power as whites, on the basis that interests and lifestyles seem to strongly follow race and we don't want the white population overpowering the black population? How would you argue to end that practice and switch to a location based system?

and you hicks wouldn't be interacting with the modern world without achievements from and made possible by cali :P

It's still people who are ultimately doing the voting with the EC. I mean sure, you could have faithless electors, but it's pretty rare. I'm not arguing against representative democracy, just the EC.

Has a direct entire-population democracy ever even been tried before?

Never understood why foreigners gave a shit about our election system.

>Making laws in respect to race.
Why the fuck do you think this is a good idea?

If you just switch to popular vote, all the idiots in Los Angeles and Jew York City can decide who will be president.

I don't think it's a good idea. I'm comparing what we're doing with the rural/city split to a similar stupid system with respect to race. I'm saying both would be bad, not that this other system is better.

yeah its called a republic not a democracy. get educated please. your little graphic is stating wyoming should have no say in the presidential election. nevermind congress/senate (1/3rd) of this republics government IS weighted by population.

Keep in mind that under the current system, roughly 40% of Californians vote republican, but they don't count, because Cali goes blue and all of its EC votes go to the democrats. If we went by the popular vote, those 40% would actually be counted for the republicans. Each state would contribute both blue and red votes, and the difference wouldn't be enough for any state to dominate. Thinking in terms of states doesn't make sense when you're talking about popular vote, so saying Cali and NY would suddenly dominate is wrong. Plus, it's unclear how many republicans in those states currently stay home because they know it's pointless.

Based white Wyomans worth 4x as much as C*lifornian subhumans and illegals

Read Federalist 68

>what you burgers don't have is more diverse political parties... You have 2 parties that fight each other forever i can't even call that democracy...
>US
>democracy
But if you want me to answer your question if people vote for a third party they might feel their vote would go to waste.

If you're interested, try some wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

People in densely populated areas shouldn't be allowed to vote

>Rural / city
Population size, locality, community, you know, all those things we already have entire governmental systems around.

The entire fucking point of the electoral college was to prevent a handful of large population centers from dominating the government.

Only 30% of the country live in large or major cities (100K or above), but most of these large cities have overwhelmingly homogeneous voting blocs. In a popular vote system a candidate who carries that 30% by an average of 70% could lose every other single county in the United States by almost 40-60 and still win the election... if that happens we cease to be a republic and become a feudal state.

We should switch to range voting or alternate vote. Then third parties would have a chance.

Lol

It makes sense if the person you're voting for is going to be in charge of that one local community. But if they are the president, or someone else more widespread, I think it makes sense for the people in the group they represent to have equal power.

Going by the intermediate groups just introduces noise. It's like rounding your numbers in the middle of a calculation.

Pic in untrue,Clinton still lost the vast majority of counties, but she was in the triple digits. Remember that the coasts, the Southern border, and the nigger belt are all democratic lockdowns.

Anyone in California is free to move to Wyoming and increase their voting power by 7x.

How much you wanna bet that a lot of her votes were from dead people and illegal immigrants

The opposite is happening, from what I've heard. As time goes on more and more people move to the blue cities.

>We should enshrine identity politics in law
Fuck you

>California and New York should be the sole deciders of who gets to run the country
Awesome. That wouldn't be disastrous at all.

I shudder to imagine a world where commiefornia decided the fate of the country

When did I say anything like that? I'm arguing for individualism. I'm saying we shouldn't artificially balance any demographic groups. That's the opposite of identity politics: ignore the person's identity, they're just a person.

It's called political power distribution. Those places who have more political power need to share it with those who are less advantaged. Isn't that basically what leftists want to do but with wealth?

I think we should have runoffs like france to pick who runs between multiple candidates.

But we still keep the electoral college for the final election where only two people are picked to run.

see

>USA
>Three voting parties
Top jej

Attached: 1531963134930.gif (400x224, 3.08M)

Prepare for the future where California is literally 100% Democrat-voting spics.

Attached: MigMob2.png (304x1134, 131K)

See
Stop ignoring post that prove you wrong faggot.

How would that happen?

I don't think that will ever happen unless both parties somehow abolish and then there is a general election of some sort.

Your meme literally illustrates why the electoral college exists.

>what gives people who live in one place more political power than the others living elsewhere?

The constitution. The USA is a union of states. The original colonies agreed to join the union if small states had some power in the government.

California get mores say in the House of Representatives.

Its disgusting that Californians are worth that much.

Basically every native European-American would migrate to neighboring states, leaving California with a tiny group of super rich and a ton of Spanish speakers and blacks. Eventually (don't know when wioo that be) those Spaniards and black will turn on Hollywood and Silicone Valley for "keeping them down".

Why would a state join the union if it had no power and would always get drowned out? That is why we have it, otherwise certain colonies wouldn't have joined because they would get drowned out by places like Virginia.

Doesn't that apply in the opposite direction, too? Even easier, in fact. A party that carries the noncity portion of the country well can ignore the cities. Unless you're saying that rural areas aren't also homogenous, but they seem to be (rural seems to go red, city goes blue).

If you're saying that one party would dominate, that is not a stable. Parties would shift strategies to balance each other for math reasons. Suburbs would become more republican for example.

The states were supposed to be ran as if they were individual nations.

Itd be like if germany, france and spain all voted in favor of keeping niggers in italy.

I mean the EU pretty much enforces shit on its member states.

But the purpose of the electoral college is so people in the cities dont vote for a politician that fucks over farmers and gives the city a bunch of gibs in return. Each state has a different economy and need so they need to be looked at indivudually.

I think it’s interesting these people believe in the economics of the free market, but don’t believe democracy can bring a better society. Isn’t it all the same? Fuck federalists

It would be bad for the Union if there was a policy that incentivized state governments to promote mass breeding as a strategy to gain unbalanced power over the senate and congress.

It would quickly turn the USA into a third-world shithole, annihilate the environment, and cause a spike in crime and pollution. Promoting mass breeding as a strategy of political dominion would be the surest way to turn the USA into Brazil. Not only that, it would encourage states to bring in as many immigrants as possible without discrimination, since more humans = more control over federal budget.

Basically this idea is a Globalist's wet dream. Shoot it down wherever it is mentioned. It would destroy the USA as we know it more surely than any foreign army ever could.

Attached: 1533334763550.jpg (768x768, 129K)

Would a switch to popular vote cause some states to secede?

Yes, we are a union of states. You know what tends to happen is that ideologically similar people tend to form communities around one another. Turns out people like to live in neighborhoods with people similar to themselves.

I'd say EC is a leftist kind of idea that currently helps the right.

It's like they don't understand what a republic is

Attached: XHFBVRA.png (280x556, 103K)

Not fair. this is a violation of the equality principle. Wyoming and California should each have 29 electoral votes. Half and half. Equal.

>blah blah blah all this hypothetical stuff I pulled out of my ass
>just do what soros wants and get rid of the safety mechanism that keeps jew York and commiefornia from taking over
>he thinks people don't remember all the EC threats that were happening
Look, you're not going to be able to sell your shit here nigger. Go to another country if you aren't happy here.

> California has the same amount of national influence as 20 Wyomings
Does that really reflect the diversity of wyomingites?

How is the free market and democracy/republic/federation/rape in any way, shape or form related?