How do we implement the popular vote? This is getting fucking ridiculous

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO DO

CHECKS AND BALANCES

popular vote is actually hardly the fairer method to measure, city populations will always roll the rural folk and politicians appease the cityfags because they kvetch the loudest for the gibs whilst rural infrastructure falls to dust!

Attached: pondering.jpg (528x440, 25K)

Came here to say this

Attached: 9d6.jpg (680x752, 48K)

It was the popular vote. Bitch to me about 2016 or later when 2020 happens.

we don't run national elections

all elections are at the district or state level, even the presidential election is really 50 separate contests who's sum determines the outcome

votes from one election do not count in a separate election, they never have and never will, stop with this nonsense argument

Attached: boi.png (500x510, 110K)

you mean republicans?

the city population SHOULD have more of a vote, objectively speaking, they are on average higher IQ, more educated, make more money, do more for the country, etc

State representation is a farce at this point. With more and more power concentrated in the federal government and the states having less and less power, the states are becoming nothing more than administrative divisions rather than small sub nations (as they were at the beginning of the USA)

>lets let California, Florida and New York decide everything for us
fuck that

42 seats that the republicans held were not up for grabs this election cycle

> rural population given outsize influence
> fair

Pick one and only one

You'll be in power uncontested for a decade, drive the country to the brink of bankruptcy, and then we're going to be forced to bring in the big guns like NYC did in the 1970s - i.e., we're going to hand public finance matters over to the Wall Street financiers. What you are rooting for, in effect, will put your worst enemies in power in the long run. Ever wonder why Wall Street is so supportive of the Democratic Party? Because they represent the fastest route to the establishment of a financial oligarchy.

Just stuff the ballots with more illegals/felons/dead people, just like you do every election

Pretty much this. Welcome to the results of Winner Take All voting.

The non-city population should have the food since they produce it and are not valued by city-folk.
Just to make sure I get your point... you're implying that people with more money matter more and votes of less wealthy and less educated shouldn't count? If that were the case Dems would be in deep poop.

Seriously? Sum shown is total of votes in numerous individual races, in various states, each of which was determined by POPULAR VOTE. You are fucking ridiculous.

remove the US constitution and institute mob rule.Communist faggot.

Nope. Coming from a high pop state I prefer some semblance of state's rights. Senate should stay. Imagine if democracy was run by NPC normies.

House of Representatives. The whole point of the Senate was to have only 2 reps per state to help balance smaller states against larger ones. Same reason for the electoral college. That way states with large cities can't dictate every election and snuff out the voices of other states with smaller populations.

higher IQ, more educated
You mean like Detroit...

The US should move to party list proportional representation with a unicameral parliament. If people insist on maintaining some level of state representation, we could at least move to mixed member proportional reps.

When 50% or more of the country is leftist retards who advocate for the destruction of countries on a regular basis and/or providing gibs, it proves that "Popular Vote" is a farce.

You are literally a brainlet for trying to turn that into a petty insult. Letting in hordes of mexicans and niggers and then allowing "popular vote" will permanently destroy the country. Have fun turning into South-America when you balkanize and a right-wing election is so groundbreaking that it makes international headlines because for once someone down there isn't advocating for freebies and communism.

Doesn’t know how the senate works. /thread

Commifornia has 2 dems on their ticket due to their rules. Popular vote is irrelevant on top of that.

balkanization when

So you admit that you have no argument for keeping the Senate around other than “it’s politically advantous to me”

First off, holy shit a leaf with some common sense. Secondly, you can literally see this in real time and look at what happened to most of the countries in the EU that were forced to take in rapefugees. They're literally the prequel to 1984 and it's fucking terrifying, yet we have millions of morons in our own country actively screaming for it to happen here.

>popular vote
>senate

Not only does the senate work on a state by state basis, There were only 33 senate seats up for grabs, the vast majority of which were Democrat held seats.

Just torch the constitution. It's easy!

Winning one state by a bunch, doesn't mean shit when you lose another state by a little bit. i don't know what else to tell you.

The left has been the long game winner since 1965 though. They will be in the drivers seat of american politics just as soon as Florida or Texas flip demographically. Once that happens, the republicans are done for. That is, unless they start supporting universal healthcare and free college, which I fully expect they will do in the next decade or two. The basic platform of the Republican party in 20 years, will have Universal Healthcare and free college on their ticket.

Attached: 1481393008592.jpg (1240x1142, 183K)

>Just torch the constitution. It's easy!

>Muh Constitution
The constitution was written by a bunch of wealthy white slave owners. It's an ancient document. The world has changed a lot in the last 242 years

The senate is a second check and balance for any bills or policies that get voted into office. If you only had the house voting for things like this you'd have countless horrible policies that would get made into full on laws that would not be good for anyone getting passed left and right. It's the main reason we Republic and not a Democracy. Mob rule means that if 100 people want your bike and only twenty people dont want them to have it, guess who's getting that bike. Not you.

The reason we operate on electoral votes and NOT the popular vote is because the founding fathers feared a straight up democracy. America is NOT a democracy despite what people say. We are a Democratic Republic. A hybrid system of various governmental forms. The founding fathers feared a pure democracy with good reason. People are often misinformed and the masses can easily be swayed to be in-favor of things that are morally and ethically corrupt and in violation of human rights. The founding fathers knew the masses are uneducated and malleable. That's part of why humanity has come so far as it has, you need malleable lemmings in-order for society to function.

Yes it has, Canada actually evolved out the need for a spine anymore.

There's at least some argument to be made for the presidential election. The Senate is literally for representing individual states. Popular vote is retarded there.

How do we force libtards to take a US Civics 101 class?

>city population
>objectively speaking, they are on average higher IQ, more educated, make more money, do more for the country, etc

Yup, cities are just brimming with the best and brightest of mankind...

Attached: 1525846843447.gif (448x448, 3.48M)

fucking checked and respected for truth
choice my ass, we get NO choice
t. Californiafag

No, we are a Constitutional Republic. We are in no way a democracy at all.

/thread
sage

At this point, we should torch the constitution. I’m only being slightly hyperbolic. The senate and electoral college are out dated institutions that make no sense in today’s age.

Ha.
...
Hahahaha.
I think I did that.

Shitty bait thread where OP is "merely pretending" to be retarded.

>People are often misinformed and the masses can easily be swayed to be in-favor of things that are morally and ethically corrupt and in violation of human rights.

The senate doesn’t exaclty have a great record of defending human rights over the last 30 or 40 years. If it was gone, I’m pretty sure things would have been fine.

we should exterminate rural populations and replace farmers with automation / nigger slaves

The founders recognized less populated, agricultural frontier states mustn’t be marginalized, and that we’re a republic and not a democracy.

womp womp

Attached: D3AD13A9-4020-4572-A08A-7AD2C390B28B.jpg (820x960, 107K)

Can we just split the country, face it we keep living together and you'll get "The Troubles" two very different countries are inside of the USA today and neither wants the other.

Also the senate actually gives MORE weight to rural less educated voters. College educated city dwellers have the same voting power as a hood rat

>The senate doesn’t exaclty have a great record of defending human rights over the last 30 or 40 years. If it was gone, I’m pretty sure things would have been fine.

I'd trust them over the cuck masses.

Its almost like people think we have a democracy instead of a representative republic. Its almost like the states are literally different entities that swears loyalty to the federal government. Its almost like popular vote doesn't mean shit because the people to crafted the constitution knew that popular vote would amount to mob rule. Fuk was these folks wizards or something?

This

>Repeal the 2-per-state mantra
>Give each state at least one senator
>Distribute the remaining 50 seats on the basis of population percentage
>A state with two more senators has two or more senatorial districts
>Give urban and rural areas alike a chance to not be overwhelmed by their state's majority
>Give larger states their due representation

This, of course, would never happen. Meh.

Attached: 10700179_10202983034117857_7182147009829473206_o (1).jpg (2048x2048, 252K)

Imagine being such a mental midget that you believe a popular vote has anything to do with the senate. Just cause you could only vote for a democrat in California with its 6.5 million voters doesn’t mean that should affect the Senate races in Wyoming.

>not allocating the largest budget for the needs of the most people

I actually went to college, let me tell you many "college educated" liberals are more or less indoctrinated into bullshit.

checked
those digits don't lie

>because california has more people living in it, they should vote for other states' senators
imagine not knowing the purpose of the senate

also,
>Democrats had 26 seats up for election
>Republicans had 9 seats up for election

Move to ancient Athens.

Over six million of those Democratic popular votes for the U.S. Senate came from California alone, where voters only had a choice on their ballot between Democrat A and Democrat B. We're talking about a huge net popular vote swing if you subtract three million votes from the Democrats and give those votes to a losing California GOP candidate (John Cox, the GOP candidate for Governor in California, received over 40% of the vote and almost three million votes in the state last night.)

There were also a lot more Democrats up for reelection (26) than Republican (9).

Nice try, though.

Attached: California.png (425x275, 15K)

>Look mom I said "Not an Argument"
The Senate and House are checks on power and legislative "filtering" structures so you aren't left with defacto power at the top. Each person in them is a person with their own opinion, which is why a few of them swing outside of their party alignment. Even when the president tries to circumvent them, they have ways to veto it.

Unlike Canada were the Prime-Minister is basically a figurehead for the party with defacto rule over literally everything in the country. There are no real power-checks, just criticism that falls on plugged ears.

>The basic platform of the Republican party in 20 years, will have Universal Healthcare and free college on their ticket.
That will be absolutely impossible to fund after every last cent has been stripped out of social spending in order to 'promote investment' and other such koolaid nonsense.
TLDR pretend social spending just to scavenge votes won't even happen

Why would you do that? The states are semi-countries. Why would a member-country of a federation give it’s representation to another member-country?

>you need malleable lemmings in-order for society to function.
t. 150% brainwashed corporate asset

So basically just a second house?
Also if Senate seat distribution was based on population Democrats would start importing millions more than they are already.
I guess what I'm saying is I'm for this if it brings us to societal collapse sooner

For fucks sake.
The vast majority of the senate races were in blue states. The dems only had 24 seats secured while the republicans went in with 42. No shit the democratic senators up for grabs got 50% more votes, they had way more races to win. If anything, the number of votes the democrats got is disproportionately SMALL compared to the number of senate races they won, but most of them were largely uncontested. This is a blatant attempt to make the senate vote seem unfair to retards who don't know that only one third of the senate is re-elected every 2 years. Is everyone in this thread fucking retarded?

Almost as if there are built in checks and balances in US government structure that were deliberated and executed over a very long time by very intelligent, capable men in order legally prevent a tyrannical majority from ever imposing its will and leading the nation down irreversible paths with innumerable negative consequences.

Attached: 1537463654437.jpg (1280x640, 262K)

They already have increased representation for population in the house though.

No, the Democrats.

Haha! Got you!

Honestly, it'll work in the left's favor someday. Especially with the college educated leftists that get into software dev or similar. They'll be able to work remotely and start setting shot in red counties that have way too much say for their population.

It's far more than two countries inside the US user. Every single state is it's own Micro country, but if you mean demographic wise then it's still at least seven.

No. Cities need to break away from their states and become territories and give up their voting for senators and the president and just have congress votes. Lower populations would vote for more libertarian reps in the Senate and Pres. If they push shit on the cities, congress would be there to stop it. Cities can then just focus on themselves and go full commie if they want. Millions on people in a small area need lots of laws and regulations. Lower poplulations don't. Yin and Yang. Both left and right mindsets can live together that way.

we already spend more from our tax coffers per capita than most developed countries when it comes to healthcare, and yet we still seem to lack behind everyone else. How the fuck do we spend more publicly and privately than almost every developed countries?

This...is actually somewhat sensible.

>Lower populations would vote for more libertarian reps in
lolbertarians still exist and unironically believe in things like this

Attached: 1501369821067.jpg (327x324, 9K)

>Let's give over 80% of the power of the senate to Four states due to them having a larger population.

I understand your average democrat has about as much understanding of the government as they do the back of their head, but please user. Do yourself a favor and actually look into why things are the way they are. On a side note, Gerrymandering is fucking bullshit and needs to be gotten rid of. Set the boundaries for districts to be set to counties of the state instead of the absolute insane bullshit that they are and that'd fix literally everything. There is absolutely no fathomable reason why the Districts are allowed to be formed the way they are. It's literally cheating the system.

When one "member country" has a disproportionate say over the taxes and whatnot of all "member countries", it's hard to argue that there's some sort of federalist pragmatism to this notion that states are there just to speak on behalf of their state governments - especially post-17th Amendment.

The Senate has been acting like a second and more elite house for decades, and you'd find that my model would benefit Republicans more than Democrats.

Attached: 10700179_10202983034117857_7182147009829473206_o 2.jpg (812x739, 108K)

>implying the US will exist at all in 20 years in a remotely similar form
Dems will assume complete dominance probably in the next decade or so. Once that happens, and the gibs start running dry, you're going to see their political fragmentation and balkanization into different interest groups. You already see this with Tariq Nasheed and his types.

Okay without malleable lemmings who is going to do the dirty work? Who is going to do all of the menial jobs like janitorial etc? Sure we are on the cusp of automation and robot servants but throughout most of human history we did not have those things. You needed malleable lemmings to do the menial jobs in-order for society to function. We are only so far along because of humanities tendency to form group mentalities and interdependence.

This, fuck the Athenian pedo party, glory to the Spartan high T party.

I've been pondering about the legitimacy of a Hong Kong model for metropolitan areas. Interesting to see it gaining some traction.

I mean, it would probably just make more sense to break up states with massive populations. We could split California and Texas several different ways. New York City could become its own state

Which party has the lowest IQ demographics?

Want to make a guess?

Attached: JR0jIgmM.png (856x1015, 136K)

You live in the United States of America, not the united peoples, the name gives the game away.

Hordes of low IQ people voting will destroy the country, and that's exactly what Democrats want.

holy shit i made that! i shoulda watermarked it

Attached: 93_GORILLION_MRW.gif (377x372, 3.46M)

Gerrymandering would be a problem with my model, sure, but that's why districts should be based on an algorithm regarding population densities rather than decided by total partisans. Again, I don't think that the Senate would ever become just an Upper House but this fucking "state rights" meme will forever be a load of shit - because neither the left nor right really seem to care about that Tea Party nonsense.

Obamaleaf! Where u been?

All of ancient Greece was gay as fuck. Rome was not only more anti-fragile and war-like, but we already have a traditional aesthetic that is basically a Rome LARP. Flyover of all places should embrace this at this point.

Restrict voting to verified property-owning citizens of some minimum net worth. Universal Suffrage was a critical error.

the money won't run dry for a very long time. We use funny money(monopoly money) these days. Once everyone around the globe realizes it's useless though, WWIII will likely break out. That's when the real Balkanization/Fragmentation will begin. Everyone will be fairly rich before that, so that will hold off the balkanization for a while. No reason to fight when your life is alright.

Attached: 1422680742012.jpg (265x200, 12K)