Explain this to a brainlet like me

Because or else get ready for the great balkanization of america.

The Senate isn’t supposed to be equal representation, that’s what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate helps to ensure that larger states don’t trample all over the smaller ones.

He's saying popular vote is more desirable because it gives "the people" more equal representation. The problem is that New York City, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Texas triangle would decide every single election, due to them being the most populated.

What incentive would smaller states have for being in the union without the electoral college?

Why would the other 48 states want to be a part of USA if NY and CA had all the power? It's pretty simple stuff.

Do these people not know what the house of representatives is for?

Democracy is an inherently flawed system. You need to put controls in place to prevent a nation from becoming a bunch of degenerate communists.
It's important to gauge what the typical retard is thinking, but you don't want them actually making decisions.

Direct democracy gets you States like California or New York where no one outside of a city has representation

most city cunts aren't people, and i don't say that lightly. they are walking memes, in the memetics sense. they don't have character or soul. by the time they hit 30 most of them are basically dead.

when democracy is mixed in with the social state, people assume they can vote in wealth, this inevitably leads to ruin, having tiered representation ensures some blockage is placed on the whims of the masses and thus the above mentioned process is if not stopped outright then at least greatly diminished

Attached: 1291610666469.jpg (1000x900, 50K)

> senators originally picked by state legislature
> not designed for popular vote/majority representation

So difficult to understand

Because otherwise tolerant liberals will have the military invade them, duh

tfw agreeing with liberals for the wrong reasons.

Attached: 1474388189349.png (1378x568, 804K)

Michael Malice is an anarchist.

Attached: 1537995667563.jpg (1240x786, 222K)

electoral college and 2 senators per state doesn't go far enough. Women and shitskins shouldn't be allowed to vote, period.

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&t=20s

You could solve 90% of our problems by requiring people be a net tax benefit in order to vote.

Apt analysis my Australian friend. They wake up and do their meme routine everyday for years until they wither and die a meme death. Thier inner thoughts are nothing but kike memes being mesmerized and regurgitated to appease their negro and Jew masters. The biggest NPCs on the planter are white urbanites.

>We aren't getting what we want so we need to change the system until we get what we want.

Bingo!

This guy gets it. In a Republic, a majority of 75% will get their way about 75% of the time. In a Democracy, a majority of 75% will get their way 100% of the time.

it mitigates mob rule

that's all there is to it

These retards fucked themselves over by eliminating the 60 vote rule in congress for a majority vote. That is how brett got in, know they want the cities to control everything. Do these fucks not know that if they lose power because if this down the line, they will never get it back?

Democrats see the US like the soviet union and all the states are nothing more than administrative regions. Republicans see the country like individual soverign states that choose to work together for the benifit of the whole. One is bottom up the other top down.

there is something to what you're saying. They are extremely self important conformists who condone corruption for personal gain

>senate isnt supposed to be equal
Proceeds to describe how the senate make the states equal.

Pure democracy is mob rule. Congress is divided into 2 houses and the upper house gives every state 2 votes. This prevents mob rule. The electoral college is there to do the same thing.
The democrats hate this because they control major cities, so under pure democracy, LA gets to tell seven states how they'll live their lives because LA has more people.

“Well of the thousand retards in our population, 501 were convinced to eat their own shit, so that’s a law now”

Electoral college is actually irrelevant, the senate is the important part that protects the smaller states. Electoral college made sense in the age before high speed communication. To stop prople from tampering with states votes for president. It could be eliminated today its little more than a formality anyway.

I would wager most Americans have no idea what the 17th amendment is and don't know that the Senate was designed to represent the individual states, not the people.

Autistic democrat screeching.

*unless they're winning

Fixed it for you, a level playing field means no advantages.

Essentially this. I have never met a liberal who actually understands the concept of federalism. Most Democrats think federalism = excuse to oppress minorities.

Exactly. The Democrats always fudge the rules until they get what they want. When the Republicans are in power, all of the rules are “racist” or “sexist” or “intruding on the rights of the minority” or whatever. Then they get in power and it’s totally cool. This is the reason they’re pushing for DC and Puerto Rico statehood so hard. They want to get rid of the Electorall College because of muh flyover states, go ahead and let them. It will just help the Republicans even more, because populist Republican candidates from big cities, like Trump, will campaign in those major population areas in order to run up the Republicans turnout, meanwhile the Democrats are already squeezing out every last vote from urban areas, and would have a hard time campaigning in rural areas to drive out the Democratic vote there. “But she won the popular vote, it was Her Turn!” they screech, unaware of the fact that millions of illegal votes, dead votes, and multiple votes ran up the total. Besides, both candidates knew the rules and campaigned accordingly. Again, Trump could have gotten a ton of votes out of New York City, and he would have campaigned there if he even had a sliver of a chance of winning the state.

By stripping the state lwgislature the power to pick their senators the states ceded power to the fed.

Equally proportional representation by population. You know what the fuck I meant. Go back to fighting emus

>Democracy is flaws
>Literally explaining parts of a Representative Republic

Fucking what. Also how can they seriously advocate for stacking the government in favor only of like 6 cities that are massively populated.

Attached: not really.png (355x281, 31K)

>We should get more than 2 senators per state!
You dropped your flag, Mr. Malice.

Attached: confederate-8x5.gif (800x800, 35K)

Holly shit, look at this dumb nigger. There is a reason congress is fucking bicameral.
Ever heard of the house of representatives? You know, the part of congress that gets seats based on POPULATION?

Retarded thing is the dems are always pushing power in the hands of the people meme, and republicans traditionaly come off as authoritarian because they believe in the established systems in place.

founders didnt create democracy for the US, the joos did once they got here and started taking over.

All countries controlled by joos are democracies so they can brainwash and manipulate the people voting.

Attached: 1528475320289.jpg (800x424, 32K)

Along what lines that would make any sense for Balkanization? It's almost entirely urban vs suburban/rural.

>"Well out of the thousand retards in our population, 488 were conviced to fuck their own daughters but they were from rural districts and because of electoral college that’s a law now.

We fucked it all up with direct election of senators. It used to be an appointed position elected by state legislatures. The Senate represents the States, the House represents the people. Most of the power was in the House at one time. Now, most power resides in the Executive due to the House relegating most "lawmaking" to executive departments like the EPA.
The Judicial was mostly nothing. It was only something when activist liberal judges started writing law from the bench. That's why everybody to the left of Hitler is now pissing their pants.

This optional voting thing is one of the weirdest things of the american system as an australian.

>left wing have high population density areas locked down (NY/CA)
>right wing have medium/low population density areas locked down (most of the country)
>left wingers want metropolitan areas to dominate politics because they would win

>Boo hoo why can't I as a Californian have complete control of the dirt farmer serfs in Kansas I was born better than them!

This.

Going a step further... the Senate is SUPPOSED to be representation of state governments. The 17th amendment fucked with that and made them elected by the people as opposed to appointed by state governments.

We should repeal the 17th amendment. As you stated; this is what a representative is for. Now state governments don't have representation.

I wish we went back to that: it gives states more say in Washington (as they should have) and it gives people more mind to pay more attention to LOCAL politics instead of national.

Electoral college and 2 senators per state were put in the constitution by the same based founder; John Rutledge. He hated democracy and owned many slaves in South Carolina. His inclusion of the electoral college especially helps curb jews and leftists to this day.

I don't know. The way I see it, democracy isn't the flaw so much as scale. The president is the executive of the federal system which was supposed to be weaker than it has grown to be. The government that affected your daily life was supposed to be almost entirely the state government which was smaller in scale and both more responsive to local needs but also less powerful and intrusive. The president is not supposed to be a popular leader because most his responsibilities are federal. In theory the president's ability to affect your life should be limited. As the federal system has become metastatic however it affects our lives more and more and states have become more like counties and lost much of their sovereignty. The electoral college is almost a vestigial remnant of a better time rather than a treatment for the ills of democracy.

In the end it's all about scale. I don't see Malice's point as very sophisticated.

Very simply put, they want their hive population centers on the coasts to impose their will on the entire country.

We have a very stark choice: Acquiesce to these cities or melt them.

If urban and suburban retards were worried about losing the Democrat policies that keep their wages from growing and keep their cost of living soaring, they would move. But they aren’t, so they’re won’t.

Citizens hate federal law when it’s banning something they don’t like, and love federal law when it enables something they do like.

Sanctuary cities are proof this make very little difference for the people whining about the electoral college; your city-state can continue to flagrantly ignore federal law. Maybe you should support states rights (wow what a crazy idea)

Electoral college would be a better alternative as to not let political illiterates vote.

If you really want to see the flaws of democracy, I truly recommend reading this:
independent-studies.com/article/the-trouble-with-democracy-54

I feel like I should be clearer. The federal government was never supposed to be as democratic as the states were because the federal system was more of a meta-system that regulated relationships between states and controlled foreign policy. There was no reason for the federal layer of government to be democratic, but the House existed to give the citizenry some input.

Michael Malice is great.

He means in that post that we're seeing notions about how "great" democracy is dying in the states (good thing) because of the absurdity of "democratic representation".

Do you get it now?

Because rural people are capable of subsisting on the means of production that they tend to already own and know how to utilize. With no representation, why be subject to laws made by 3 cities in America when you can say fuck off, compete globally with agriculture, and also legislate how they see fit? Why would I, as a Kansan ever wish to participate in a governing system that will never place me and my states interests anthwere near the top?
>These retards waaaaaay over here want to decide what you can do, so were going to give you retards a chance to either deny that shit or legislate what they can do
I see nothing wrong

You’re ridiculous. The last thing we need is for even more retards to be picking our nation’s leaders. Mandatory voting would mean Democrats dominating every election from top to bottom. Part of the reason Republicans do so well in the midterm elections is because the Democratic voter base is just a bunch of lazy welfare leeches who never bother to get up off their asses and vote, unless it’s an important presidential election.

These brainlets dont know shit. The founding fathers literally had this exact same debate 240 years ago, it's not some flaw in the Senate it's that way by design.

>hurr durr why does Idaho get the same representation as California when barely anyone lives there? It should be proportional to population!
...what is the House of Representatives?

>but why does a bunch of empty land get the same amount of representation as a highly populated state?
Because America is big as fuck, and the will of NYC, LA, SF, and Chicago won't necessarily benefit people live outside of those areas. Having an agrarian or industrial career shouldn't invalidate your governing needs just because you're outnumbered by paper pushers and the people who scrub their toilets and cook their meals.

It's so weird because I think a lot of these people aren't even trying to play rhetorical games, they just literally dont know shit about civics

The benefit of democracy is not "fairness" or any other childish concept; its "legitimacy".
And in the broadest terms, the more influence a population has, the more important it is that they view the system as legitimate and are pacified.

The effect of the electoral college is that more numerous low-population states have disproportionate voice compared to the small number of high-pop states (because of the electoral votes representing the senators).
This works perfectly because unhappy city people can be suppressed with riot police, while suppressing a rural area leads to protracted guerilla warfare.
If a system has to take sides between the two, you side with rural people.

This right here is one of two viable solutions to democracy. The other being that your vote enters you into you voluntary political system of choice, so we would have a system of multiple functioning federal parties rather than one compromise system that fails just about everyone but bureaucrats and their paymasters.

Attached: 1537185412106.jpg (767x960, 121K)

Alright
>t.brainlet:Because I live in california I should be able to decide what gets voted on in wyoming or nebraska and everything that works in california works in alaska and north dakota.
Because we have a large population we should get more say than those farmers and miners in those rurals areas that run the nation.

Democracy is ridiculous when you think about it

Why should millions of low IQ retards in California decide the entire fate of the country?

Yet these people have no problem with states like California receiving MANY extra representatives due to their illegal immigrant, and non citizen populations.

The notion that people think anything is "legitimate" about mob rule and forcing majority dictates on a minority boils my blood.
People are thoughtless convention-slaves. Thinking makes them feel unpleasant so they avoid it like the plague.

It's be great if they'd secede, but the political class wouldn't like that. They'd be "less important" if the country became smaller or the state less monolithic.

fucking retards don't understand their own civics

Congress = lower house - elected to represent the people
Senate = upper house - elected to represent the states

there's no point in having the senate if it does not mean equal representation of each state

Lol it's pretty much just a modern rebranding of the 3/5ths compromise

Ummm it's like .... reeeeeeeeeeee

Democrats love the idea of mob rule. The more they can import the bigger their mob becomes.

see
Because retarded or not, they still have the ability to disrupt society if they became committed to doing so.

I understand why you feel that way, but also realize that modern civilization's very existence is based on a very tightly controlled system of logistics.
You could argue in favor of more "freedom", whatever that means to you, but many many types of "freedom" come at the cost of millions of people starving.

he already did

>the people
>the states
There's supposed to be no dichotomy, and the law recognizes no such dichotomy.

Unsurprisingly both scenarios are Democrat fueled.

That's because he's giving the answer they taught him in school rather than the practical political reality.

see

>but many many types of "freedom" come at the cost of millions of people starving
What on earth do you think the state does that makes food production and distribution so much better that people would starve by the millions without them...?

Founding fathers knew democracy has problems. The republic we have is an attempt to harness freedom and democratic rule without getting burned by it.

Essentially hes responding to someone who is bitching about the limits the fathers put in place.

Do you see how stupid, misinformed, petty, and brainwashed so many people are? What would this country look like if there was absolutely no buffer between their whims and each day's political outcomes? All the way back to the times of ancient Greece and Rome, it was understood that direct democracy was the most degenerate and unstable of all forms of government. And the founders of this country wanted to create a system that listened to and considered the voice of the people... but contained as many anti-democratic safeguards as possible (to ensure stability and sound judgement).

The electoral college was one of those safeguards (as was the prohibition on women and non-white, non-land-owning voters). It's about taking power out of the hands of blue-haired, feminist landwhales, and "le ebin Rothschild central bank conspiracy" brainlets.

"Legitimacy" itself is laughable, its used as a cop out to morally justify anything. In reality might makes right, and if its being done, its legitimate.

The reason leftists cant understand it is because the government was designed to never pass anything without what is essentially a supermajority between all parties, classes, etc. Its not supposed to work, its supposed to be gridlocked to death and fuck off out of peoples lives

If you don't understand it, you probably shouldn't vote. The system wasn't designed with you in mind.
Our REPUBLIC (not democracy) was designed to work with a biblically literate (not necessarily Christian) white male voting system is horribly broken.

To be safe for all eternity:
A: Admit that you are a sinner, who violates the Will of God, and that you need a Saviour.
B: Believe that Jesus Christ, Son of God & Messiah, died for you sins and rose again, as prophesied and recorded in the Word of God.
C: Call on His name, ask Him to save you, and confess that He is Lord.

Some resources that may help:
TTB.org has a verse by verse Bible Study for download or daily listening.
Chuck Missler’s Learn the Bible in 24 Hours (youtu.be/PZ3hESj__M8)
Robert Breaker’s Bible Study and Topical Sermons (youtu.be/H124iZiyGUs)
J.D. Farag’s Bible Study and Prophecy Updates ( youtu.be/U4AMM93cXz8 )

Clearlywrittendotnet YouTube channel details near future events. (youtu.be/zRrkUymeST4)

BlueLetterBible.org has a free online bible & apps with cross references.

OneForIsrael.org is a group of Israeli Jews who know Jesus is their messiah.

Unsealed.org tracks information that points to Jesus’s soon return.

Watchfortheday.org shows how many world events are prophetically and numerically linked.

The End is nigh. Tomorrow may be too late.

Attached: image.jpg (1275x1650, 338K)

you actually don't get 'more' say/representation if you are californian, since you are still voting for candidates in your home state. The thing is migration is really what caused the imbalance, since their citizenship becomes their only concern after enfranchisement, whoever bends to them gets the vote. Hence the electoral college DOES to an extent prevent exploitation of populations in elections, but at a basic level it isn't democratic in essence.

Name one pure democratic country that's not shit.

>"Legitimacy" itself is laughable
Not in regard to everything. I think if someone steals your property that's illegitimate, and if you go to get it back that that's legitimate action on your part.
Legitimacy is a moral quality, and has to do with right and wrong (legitimate/illegitimate) moral relations.

Because if the state allowed basic food logistics to fall apart, the state would be instantly torn down.
Its one of the rare cases where its actually in a government's best interests to do their job well.

On the contrary, if some libertarian "society" left its food logistics up to a single firm, and that firm turned out to be a fly-by-night outfit, who would be accountable?
You'd be stuck "letting the market fix it" by trying another firm, while thousands or millions starve.

No single state may have rule over the others. Regardless of nigger/beaner population. It's pretty simple senpai.

You dont give the the half of your country that dont vote enough credit mate.

But ulitimately morality is subjective, and depending on the culture and individual, the legitimacy of the act depends on what is backed by force.

The state doesn't deal with "basic food logistics".
Producers, distributors, and vendors of food deal with the logistics of their trades.

It's not a single firm that deals with those now (look at how many damned trucking contractors there are - there's tens of thousands of them), and it's not the state at all.

You're attributing something the state doesn't do to the state.

You can't get around voting for executive but lawmaking bodies should be by lottery (with some things spelt out that would disqualify or exempt those chosen). This would totally cut out the power of (((parties))) and lawmakers being beholden to donors.

No, I think morality is completely objective. There are things that are right, and things that are wrong, and one's opinion on whether their right or wrong has no bearing whatsoever on the actual moral fact of the matter.

>most americans are city people who's local economies depend on technology/business
>the minority of americans who are rural and suburban retards grow all our food/raise livestock
If our elections went by popular vote americans would starve because politicians would ignore states with low population density.

Attached: 2010-US-population-density-100-people-per-square-mile-Population-densities-were.jpg (600x522, 159K)