1. ur vagina

>The district lines rival Tajikistan in terms of border gore, poorer urban areas (and there’s a lot) typically won’t have immediate access to polling places
Where are polling places set up in Amerikkka?

Here it's mostly schools since they're public institutions.

The electoral college has been in place since the early elections with jefferson and adams. The reason for it was the population at the time was not suitable to vote on issues that affected the whole. I think it's a good system still because people are still fucking retarded to this day and don't know what they want. It also gives smaller states a say otherwise big states would dominate the political landscape. However it leaves candidates just focusing on states that have more electoral votes. Listen I don't like trump but every presidential election calls people to abolish the electoral college because their side didn't win. Democrats and Republicans had won with electoral college before.

Democrats are highly in favor of non-partisan redraws. Stop perpetuating this “muh both sides” bullshit.

The gerrymandering is very real, in 2014 fidesz got 45% of the votes, but gained 67% of seats
There are always accusation every election, even before fidesz, about paying (in the form of a few kg of potatos or a few m3-s of wood) and bussing poor gypsies to the polling stations.
This year there were accusations (with substantial evidence imo) about giving poor holols citizenship and giving them residence in hungary so they'll vote for fidesz.
>increased their autism about ID checking
Never understood how could anyone trust in a voting system where there isn't guarantee that everyone is only able to vote one time.

Your an idiot that didn't even bother to comprehend my post. "but it won't get passed because two parties never agree on anything". How do you propose it getting passed without republican support? Think before you post.

inb4 ironic because i used the wrong you're*

You're right, that's why the electoral college was made. They didn't trust the people bro actually decide so they decided to create a "natural aristocracy" to really make decisions.

>gerrymandering
I. Literally do not give a shit famalamadingdong

You make it sound like partisan bickering rather than something that grossly works in republicans’ favor. There’s a reason they would never agree.

1. America
2. No

We use D'Hondt method to allocate seats in aprliament which favors bigger parties over smaller ones.

Because it is partisan bickering.

What do Americans in general think about the two-party system? Has it been succesful, and is a more representative electoral system ever brought up?

You’re an idiot.

> urban areas (and there’s a lot) typically won’t have immediate access to polling places
what does this mean
> (had a guy stare at me for a solid 10 seconds while squinting at my driver’s license photo during the primaries
why is this bad, same happens here at polling places, why is it bad if security wants to check your identity

Two-party system works well with forcing compromise to get shit done but causes huge problems when both sides won't budge and compromise.

Just because democrats are against gerrymandering and republicans are for it doesn't mean it isn't partisan bickering at all fuckhead. Do you even know what partisan bickering is? You also never answered my first question of how it would get passed if all they did was BICKER and not agree? And you agreed with me so my point still stands. Democrats are in the right, but it's still bickering.I've basically spoonfed your ass, you get it now?

Mostly schools and community centers. My mom used to vote in a National Guard armory.

>why is it bad if security wants to check your identity
Nothing per sé but you can use extreme security checks as a measure of deterring unwanted voters.

> i don't want security to check my id
my first instinct is people that get discouraged by something like that probably shouldn't vote

I don't see how electors change anything apart from making it an arbitrary number instead of actual votes. And I really don't buy the argument that it makes things more fair. If a state has less people than another, that naturally means less votes from that state. If anything, the elector system makes things less fair since the majority in a state determine who the elector votes go to instead of individual votes contributing to the candidates' chances

>Mostly schools and community centers.
I fail to see the problem. There aren't schools in poorer urban areas?
I live in a typical commieblock neighbourhood and voting takes less time than going to the grocery to pick up a pack of cigarettes.

>I don't see how electors change anything apart from making it an arbitrary number instead of actual votes.
Because some states probably turn out more than others? You would just pander to cities leaving farmers and shit out of the picture. It involves every bit of the US in the presidential election process.
>And I really don't buy the argument that it makes things more fair.
I don't think I ever said it was fair. It just gives smaller states voting power. Just because someone wins popular vote doesn't always mean it's the majority of the nation.
>If a state has less people than another, that naturally means less votes from that state.
Yes
>If anything, the elector system makes things less fair since the majority in a state determine who the elector votes go to instead of individual votes contributing to the candidates' chances
It adds up all the little states together to match the big population ones. California is worth 55 I recall but only Montana is worth 3. But Montana plus ten other states could be 30 or more.

Bickering would imply neither side had anything to gain. Republicans absolutely benefit from gerrymandering among other unethical practices. You clearly don’t understand half the terms you’re using.

No, on the contrary, voting is compulsory and if you don't vote you are fined and might even lose benefits if you're a civil servant.

>Bickering would imply neither side had anything to gain.
No it doesn't. It's just arguing. Bickering about gerrymandering laws can be applied to literally any other issue. Are you pro something? Chances are you won't compromise with someone who is against.
>Republicans absolutely benefit from gerrymandering among other unethical practices.
I don't care. They benefit, democrats don't. They bicker because republicans want to keep it, democracts don't. Apart from spoonfeeding you these ideas, I can't help you.
>You clearly don’t understand half the terms you’re using.
I don't think you do honestly. I think you're arguing semantics and implications which I don't care about. I already stated what I said, and if you're too dumb to realize oh well