Can someone explain to me why exactly we have an electoral college instead of just going by popular vote?

This post exemplifies the level of alienation caused by urban sprawl.

To make sure that tiny states like Wyoming or Rhode Island have a voice in elections.
If there was no electoral college then urban centers would decide every election.

It's used to force presidential candidates to appeal to more than just the most populous parts of the country.

Same reason why we have the senate. Gives people reason to go for states.

How would this not the right way to do it? You look at those blue states, and a good portion of them were actually red. Shit system a shit.

LOL.

I knew it. I fucking knew it. Every time this happens a new barrage comes down the pipeline screaming to end the electoral college.

The electoral college is part of the many checks and balances built into the constitution. In this case, it is part of the balance between the power of the federal government and the individual States. By giving States supernumerary powers beyond simple population counts, they are afforded much more political sway in the system. This acts as a decentralizing force, and that can't be emphasized enough: it helps decentralize the size and scope of the federal government in favor of the States. This is due to the power play that the federal government has to bow to lest the rural hicks pull another Trump or Bush or cetera again. Were it not for the seventeenth amendment, this would be made much more abundantly clear, as the way the electoral college is structured would then make the President much more naturally suited to managing the disputes between the Senate and the House.

And if it were not for the electoral college (and possibly the late introduction of the 23rd amendment), the U.S. would have become like nearly every country in the Americas: one overwhelming people-teemed megacity followed by mostly empty land until the next national border. And all of the political, economic, &c. problems of this would have followed with it. We would not be a Republic, but rather another bongoland "Democracy" where one ghetto district in the capital decides for all.

But the decentralization aspect, and the balance of power between the States is, I feel, the true answer.

I understand wanting to gripe about this, but I feel a much more productive way to go about this that we can all agree upon is:

- Banning electronic voting machines and mandating exit polls.

Also maybe voter ID and moving tax day from the 15th to election day, but let's stick with the simplest reform that I think a lot of people can agree on.

Tl;dr: the electoral college is a very important check and balance.

Spengler had some things to say about the cycle that involves the cosmopolitan.

Not even a full day yet.

Forces counties to be drawn by population lines, not natural borders or anything else.

Because the founders were having a bitch of a time satisfying the states. Old style republics where state reps vote for the president gave too much relative power to smaller states and a popular election swings it back to large states (imagine cali deciding every election).

They went with a middle ground option where electors are distributed based on population. The electors cast their vote (aside from a few odd cases) based on the election results from their district.

The electoral college was created to prevent the exact voter fraud that we see happening right now. There is now way that Hillary is winning the popular vote. It makes no sense. Electoral votes are based on state's population. That means that some states (ie ones without voter ID laws) are having higher "turnouts" than they can possibly have irl. Basically, non-citizens are voting by the millions in our elections.

We were all talking about how much the EC sucked until Trump won…I thought we were more intellectually honest than that guys.

Who is "we"? I was never against the electoral college. If you're against it, you're basically saying that Cali should be able to rig the vote with millions of spics.

its very interesting that only now people/media bring up the electoral college as an issue

Basically you've been lied to by the left and the media.

This IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Because it gives a voice to small states, ensures a victor if need be through the House of Representatives, and is an extra guard for the country. A true Democracy would inevitably die way quicker then the Representative Democracy we have.

So that crooked politicians couldn't pander to gibmedats in large urban areas and stay in power indefinitely. Thought that would be obvious by now.

So that California and NY don't single-handidly control politics over 48 other states with different peoples and problems. It's called "tyranny of the majority," it's why we're not a democracy and never should be. In fact we're far too democratic, this system isn't what the founding fathers set up.

This election is evidence enough. With the popular vote, whatever the hordes of niggers and numales in big cities say goes. The kikes wouldn't even have to concentrate their rigging on specific areas, they'd just keep churning out spic votes in Commiefornia, where there are no checks and balances. It's because they rigged the vote there that she won the popular vote; Trump was leading the vote all the time as the votes came in before CA.

You ready for the MegaCities and Direct Democracy? It's all part of the plan user.

FTFY

(((We)))

Hardly, people here have been saying the EC benefits Republicans all the time.

Do you want Cali and New York to decided every election?

Because it would be too easy to rig the election? And it wouldn't represent the country as a whole

Me and several others posted about a hundreds times how Republicans win about 30 small states, which means 60 free electors while Democrats win about 20 larger states, which gives them 40 electors, giving Republicans a bonus 20 electors. It's been well known on here.

Also you can't even determine who won the popular vote, Republicans in California barely show up to the polls because they know their vote is irrelevant. In an electoral system where voters vote with electors in mind, you can't determine the popular vote when it's close unless it's a blowout, you have no idea what the popular vote would have been if that's what voters were motivated to vote on.

It helps counteract the CA population voting, retard. Nice shit tier lolbertarian/stupid democrat argument bro.

I'm OP and I never said that. I was just asking so I properly understand the system because I'm curious. I can understand a bit better why the system is in place and it seems a lot more fair than just popular vote. It just seemed a bit odd on first glance

You are an okay dude user. Hopefully you aren't an oldfag and you can spread this type of thinking to a younger audience.

If it was by popular vote, more Trump supporters would've voted in blue states/counties.

Thats a sand crawler

kek ordained that the EC would give Trump the presidency and therefore it was

The electoral college is all about giving more power to the states and making it harder to rig the election.

If the federal government took over voting, and all of the votes were handled / counted up by a single entity, it would be significantly easier to stuff the ballot or make shit up. Hillary would have received 90% of the vote or some nonsense.

Even if there was no voter fraud, going with the popular vote means city residents would have the most influence on our government. We would have Feinstein as president it would be illegal for the rural peasants to protect themselves from bears.

hear, hear!

POST OF THE NEW CENTURY!!!

I would rather have a parliamentary voting system than via popular vote

underrated post.

If you don't like the way things are and have been for 240 years in the USA, you are free to emigrate to Mexico or Canada anytime you like, preferably sooner than later.
You are also free to go the fuck back to halfchan as well.

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. WE ARE A REPUBLIC. GO FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING MARXIST

This is fucking me up. We need to dealt with those democrat fucking shits.

I can smell the salt all the way here

we won
you lost
get over it

What would be the point of states? Why should one state gain more power if their population increases faster?

Because you don't have a national government you have a Federal government.

0.2% is too slim of a margin to use this argument

gg no re

because our government was designed to be hierarchial and focusing people on things they have the most experience in.

the people are only guaranteed the ability to vote in local politics, state politics and for the house. this is because the people are only versed in local issues.

the president is supposed to basically be the primus inter pares to the governors and Congress. and so, the system isn't built for him to be selected by we plebeians, but by the state legislatures, indirectly through the electors (who are chosen by methods set by the state legislatures). this is because those people would be more capable of selecting a president who can work amiably with the Congress and governors.

bluntly, as the system is built, we shouldn't even vote for president. it just so happened that all of the various state legislatures decided to enact popular votes to determine electors, and so, we broke the Republican system by turning it into a semi-democracy.

But those states get so few electoral votes that they're not really focused on anyways.

wtf dont talk about qt Rhode Island like that

Preach it brother.

As a country boy it never fails to amaze me the level of disconnect that city people have from reality.

If it wasn't for the fact that (((they))) would surely find some way to abuse it I would advocate for going back to a system in which only land owning men can vote. Would nicely take care of the degeneracy that urbanization brings to our society.

Still the though that troubles me more than any other is how to stave off the slow rotting effect of urbanization on society.

Exactly why the solution is to have a Constitutional Amendment banning direct voting for the Presidency period, limiting the commerce clause, and repealing the 17th Amendment. The 'muh democracy' nonsense has gotten out of hand as has the Federal level.

The electoral college is borne out of the Connecticut compromise, that gave us our bicameral legislature. We have the house of representatives, which is based on population, and the senate, which gives equal representation to each state. For a bill to become a law, it must have (indirectly) the favor both of a majority of the people, and a majority of the states.

The number of electors a state has is equal to its number of congressmen. This ensures a state gets a minimum of three votes, and only gets more if it has a bigger population. The three vote minimum helps buffer the effect of population without ignoring it. Say one state has a population of X, and has three votes, and another state has a population of 2X. The second state has twice the population, and therefore twice the representatives, but does not get twice the voting power. It gets 1.25 times the voting power, keeping it from drowning out the smaller states voice, while not disregarding the larger population.

It is meant to keep the power of states supreme, not the people. Large city centers would dictate everything without it.

Fuck, I meant 1.33 times the voting power

So that densely populated urban states don't entirely fuck over less populated ones.

You're obviously from cuckchan. It's time to go back

What is that? What THE FUCK is that?

Ugliest shit I ever saw.

Electoral college balances the power of city people with rural people.

When the US was becoming a country they gave states however many votes depending on their importance. California had massive clout when it was deciding whether to join the US or not so it got the biggest say, as well as the silver in the eastern sierra nevada mountains. Texas has always had a rebellious spirit so it gets more votes than new york out of fear it would want to leave.

They havent figured out or got around to developing a system to replace it.

that shit looks like when you just start playing the sims and don't know how to make a fucking roof.

Electoral College is what makes us a Republic not a democracy

I'm convinced ending the college was the purpose of their plan.
Pic related

I think a better system would be where they get the majority of the electoral college votes if they win the state, but the actual people in the state get a say in it as well, like a 60/40 split. We wouldn't be getting rid of the electoral college and the states would have the same amount of electoral college votes, but it would be at least a little more fair for the Americans that are forced to live in shit states.

It's a bit disturbing how many anons don't know basic high school American history. Small States vs Big States, 2 Houses of Congress compromise etc. Anons need to take a break from reading about the philosophy of National Socialism and start getting up to date with normalfag tier history.

This pseudo-democratic system, which all western states use, is designed with one overarching and primary goal in mind, namely to block clever populists from toppling the system. In effect, all it's components are built that so there is enough inertia that a new political force can't swoop in and make real changes against the agenda, before the system is able to react against it.

People put great symbolic value in presidents and prime ministers, but in actuality it's the representatives in the senate/parliament or what-have-you that actually implements and decides policy. The system can't survive if people are actually allowed to vote directly for what they want, because then a clever individual can represent those values and get decisive power to actually implement it. That's why Hitler, even with his overwhelming support in the general German population at the time, had to supplement his campaign with a lot of illegal means. Think of the irony in that; for the one with the peoples support to be democratically put in a position of any real power he had to use undemocratic methods to make it happen. That's of course because our "democracies" aren't democracies at all, but oligarchies bordering on dictatorship maintained through propaganda.

In a worst case scenario as this system stands, were a real threat to the system to arise, they only need a couple of corrupt states to ensure a sizeable chunk of representative power still resides in the power structure they know and control. The populists then would still have to play ball with these people for a long time, giving time for subversion. Perhaps now that Trump is secured in office, it's time for Holla Forums to take off it's rose tinted glasses and come back to reality about how bad the situation actually is and how, even though this is a victory to be celebrated, how small of a victory it really is. Democrats and republicans alike are both totally corrupted structures. Remember that immigration will still continue, women will still be encouraged to run berserk, the schools will continue indoctrinating the children with marxist tripe and while tossing out some illegals might postpone shtf for a couple of years, it's still a drop in the bucket. Remember also that less than a hundred years ago, before the cultural marxism was kicked into high gear in the west, Trump's general platform wouldn't be considered even close to right wing at all. The whole structure is still intact, all those senators Trump now leads are the same old corrupt guys who knows how to play ball and he is still severely limited in what he will be able to get done, no matter his intentions. In short, the agenda is still plodding away at mach speed.

That's also why their response is sulking and whining from the low level body politic instead of civil war. There are thousands of points of subversion going on and even if two or three of them are addressed, in reality that's close to nothing. This is also why consistently 1/3 to about half of the population in western states doesn't bother voting at all. Because nothing changes when you cast your vote between the aspects of the establishment that has been pre-selected for you and the inertia of the system is too great to allow for anything really new. The more redpilled the population, the less voters. Nothing will change about this until a real revolution in the west kicks off.

Seriously, that was masterful. How are Americans not fucking PUMPED to have 4-D chess maestro handling diplomacy for them now?

If voters choose some retard electors can change it. Safeguard from times when idiotic democratic system was somewhat hampered that only white land owning males could vote.

I get it. The architectural designer is ugly jewish kikess, and she's feminist, so the building represents high heel shoe stepping on western culture.

implementing popular vote now without proper ID checks would be suicidal even for democrats, 100 million Juans would just come over to some border state and vote some fucking drug lord into office.

As if we haven't had one already.

sorry for shit pic, not wasting an hour to find something better

Wut? The number of electors is the number of that states senators plus the number of voting representatives. The number of voting representatives is capped at 453 by law, but those seats are meted out according to the census. If populations change, so do the seats. It has nothing to do with whatever retarded scheme you are talking about.

Dubs of truth. I mentioned the Connecticut compromise earlier, but no one gave a shit.

Many of us are.

sage for doublepost

peer pressure is a helluva thing.

THESE UNITED STATES ARE

...

This has probably been mentioned or is bait but I will tell you anyways because anti-electoral college opinions are too prevalent. The first thing that you need to understand is that the United States is a republic, a form of democracy, but much different than a "pure", or direct democracy. Secondly understand that democracy is absolute shit tier. There is a reason there was a literacy test, only white men who owned land could vote, the states were considered "sovereign", and the electoral college was put into place to begin with . Those are good stipulations but they should have gone much stricter with them. A democracy is when 51% take from 49%. Also keep in mind that an appeal to the majority is literally a logical fallacy. The electoral system is also important because it ensures that the cities, or populated areas, aren't able to enforce their will upon the rural areas. Imagine if the electoral college wasn't there and the cities were allowed to vote for a candidate who ran on the platform of fucking over rural areas. If it worked well enough, eventually the cities would die too because they wouldn't be able to get food from the rural farm areas.

The founding fathers, albeit they were liberals, still had a semblance of tradition about them. They understood that appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy, and that even people in the minority of opinions should have a voice, because they might be the ones who are right. Also, in regards to the voting stipulations, really think about how those things previously mentioned ensure a better voting base. Whites because they are kin, and the blood bond is important. Whites because they share Western values, and are more often noble and intelligent. The land owner stipulation helps ensure that voters have a vested interest in what they vote for, and helps weed out the people allied to foreign lands. The literacy test is pretty simple, but it siphons out low IQ plebs. Felons aren't allowed to vote either because they have shown their degenerate nature, and they tend to be lower IQ people too. Men were allowed to vote because they understood nobility, honor, loyalty, and duty, as well as having a better chance for a higher IQ (if you filter out non-land owners, felons, and non-whites). The IQ spectrum for women is very much in the average zone (which is majority tier, aka shit), the IQ spectrum for males has much more variance. Males have more geniuses and idiots. If you filter out the idiots via the other stipulations you have a higher % of geniuses, and above average people (as opposed to the average you would have gotten with a female base).

Tradition exists for a reason, don't sell the days of yore short. I am sure I missed things and I don't feel like spellchecking so you get what you get.

God bless em.

states rights bitches

Also, Jews and Liberals support removing the electoral college, so you know its good and we should keep it.

Without it is like "Two wolves and lamb voting on what's for supper"

Pretty much, yeah.

Different states are different communities. A single community in one area is always going to be somewhat homogeneous in its ideologies, but that doesn't work when you have multiple communities that are supposed to each have a say so that they can be allies. So they give electoral votes based on the populations of each state.

But the real question you should be asking yourself is why the electors aren't bound to vote by their state…

Notice how for Texas the blue areas consist of pretty much Dallas, Houston, and border jumpers.

...

im surprised they havent pozzed austin yet. also that lone blue county in alabama is birmingham, which got detroited before detroit and is now a near empty nigger shithole. not as shitty as detroit because the whites didnt start moving out the dubya depression

But a revolution for what? And who would run it? Even Hitler didn't have to dealt with such a mixed and numerous population. There are too many people, too many races, too many ideologies to really get it going. This is why overpopulation and multiculturalism is such a problem. When a revolution is needed, there's simply too many people of too many backgrounds and ideas to make it work. Think about it, can you think of a single revolution that happened in a muticulturalism, progressive, overpopulated society?

Although majority democracy is horrible, making it land-owner democracy is not any better. Remember who has the most wealth and a protip, it isn't whites. Kikes would just stock up on land en-masse, weasel out any prominent whites in embryo with great deals for shitty land and end up controlling the entire scheme. It also takes the voice away from those who are not interested in owning land, but have otherwise served their state through other means like research or military. In the end, you'd create a state with whites having even less voice than they do now.

meant for

There's also all of the corruption going on with eminent domain where the state keeps stealing land to place malls or to sell it to other countries.

It obviously wouldn't work with our society. I am actually very anti-democracy in any form. The point was that they built it from the base up to have these things. If it would have stayed that way it might have been free of kike and leftist subversion but people cucked, aka democracy in all forms is shit. The land owner stipulation is only good only, in context, of the other stipulations, especially the only white male one.

The kind of pozzed trash in Austin isn't smart enough to register to vote. Austin is full of weird shit like white girls with dreadlocks begging for spare change on the street.

dunno, this is pretty chaotic if you ask me.

we are states..

I thought he was saying if you owned land you would get a vote, but a vote only. No matter how much you own it would be just a vote.

You have to go back.

relevant

This election is precisely why we use an electoral college - so kikes can't simply import a bunch of niggers, spics, and dead people into cities to win their elections.

Checked

He could have been but it doesn't mesh with what I was saying at all. Owning land would qualify you to vote, not to have more votes. That is different from the electoral college because the state (aka sovereign or independent state, like a country) has the end all say. So if kikes wanted to rig it they would have to own almost all the land. Even one kike could own over 60% of the land, but he still has one vote because he is one person. the 40% white male land owners could easily defeat him. Also

Does that clear up my point? Or am I misunderstanding?

Most of Hillary's 'popular vote' came from brainwashed liberals and illegals in California. Do you really want California and other ivory towers deciding how people live in the rest of the United States?

Speak for yourself. I've always been a proponent of the EC.

/thread

The kikes wouldn't have to own it themselves, they could just get a bunch of shabbos goy to vote for them. Also, see
Them taking land from ranchers was the whole reason for what happened at Bundy Ranch, what makes you think they wouldn't do some bullshit like sell land by the square inch to a bunch of "white" people.

Oh, I agree. That is why kikes shouldn't be in any western society and voting is shit. Once again, the land owner stipulation was only good in the context of the time. Also, in part, the shiftiness of what you are describing can be attributed to democracy as a system (remember I said in part). Democracy is shit-tier, even if you have a republic. A republic seeks to narrow the majorities rule, and promote the exceptional a bit, but there is still a wide degree of variance. I am of belief that appointing the exceptional by the exceptional is the best route, as long as you had a solid foundation in the beginning of exceptional people it would last much longer than a democracy, which promotes treasonous liars, and slanderers.

That's what I was thinking too. But is is stupidly overcomplicated and expensive. They would just rather fight to change the system that have go go through with that.

For example you would have to find millions of said Shabbos, and we are talking owning the land here and perhaps even going through a veting procces to ensure it is your land and you are not merely renting in. Meaning the kike would have to hand out miles upon miles of free land. Millions and Millions of shekels and then there's nothing that will gurantee him the Shabbos will vote for who he told to vote, because he would have to create a system to ensure all the Shabbos comply. You would have to employ a massive number of people to get this system working, and surely authorities would notice all the fucking people running around house to house to ensure Shabbos votes for the kike. It's just burning money, resources and would need too much personnel. Even at his best kikes like Soros can only emply a few thousand of niggers to bus around the country in his made up protests. And the BLM crowd is mostly volunteers that bought into their stupid shit.

the electoral college works best when the country isn't full of illegal aliens and refugees, communist leftards and their sanctuary cities

don't get distracted from what thevreal problem is

…jews?

I thought that's when in worked best. After all it's what assured the Trump victory.

We haven't seen the beginning of that yet. For now, people have it too good to risk anything. People can still be placated with the usual bread and circus, but that will change.

When people begin to understand that their (and their descendants) survival is actually on the line, there might still be time for organizing and resisting. It's a slim hope, and getting weaker everyday, but what can we do other han to hope and prepare.

Western nations as you know them today won't survive either way. Not any others either, for that matter. The idea that everyone can come along through some sort of reforming the current systems is delusional. All paths along those lines lead to the marxist "utopia" where our descendants will be part of a rootless collective of mongrel slaves, held in a degree of bondage that has never before been seen in this world.

What do we do about the numerous numbers of races that are not our own living in our country? They will never back us, and we should not seek them. Borders shouldn't open like that, we can't share land if we are of a different race altogether. It makes everything so complicated, especially for when a true revolution comes.

What the fuck was I on about. But you get the idea. 30 or so million Latinos, 20 or so Blacks, add in 20 of Muslims and Asians and "Other" of 5 Million. Plus countless of mongrels, misterymeat and mixes.

Because states with big cities and populations would make voting redundant for people outside of those cities.
Big cities is also where all the niggers, leftists and immigrants are.

Holy shit, no wonder republitards think global warming and evolution aren't real.

global warning is not worth the billions that they spent on faggots working on in that haven't made progress in their research in a fuckton of time.

Good question, I don't know. Hopefully they can be made to see that it's actually in their interest too that we segregate and base our societies on something better. Perhaps it would be possible to live in peace then.

Holy fucking kek!

If the world went to shit, and nations collapsed and goverments crashed and burned, then it would be better for us to cast them away. Let's be realistic, we can't kill everyone, we would just be fighting more and more groups. But we can't make them go to land where they never lived en masse especially after everything went to shit. So just be selfish dude, put the out, set a border line, and shoot everyone that crosses out. Throw them into the ocean if neccesary. It's not even a DOTR type stuff to me, it's just that people can't integrate, it doesn't work and it has never worked. And in a society without a working goverment and law enforcement it's just gonna escale into war that will cost tons of resources that we need to rebuild back.

hey listen man if you are so concerned about that i'm all for nuclear energy, but then people like you puss out because that's not the type of science you wanna deal with, the highly dangerous and unstable one that we don't fully get yet.

The founding fathers understood that anyone besides aristocrats and people that do hard work shouldn't have a say in the policies of the country. Hard workers will ALWAYS have a say in what happens in the country since they naturally end up rising to the top. Not all of them become official aristocrats, though since its unnecessary to do that if your aim is only to influence the policy.

But the aristocrats of today are all jewed and pozzed as fuck, what do we do about that?

Trump is our Jackson. He only needs to bear himself correctly to make everything right. All of the dead wood will be taken out of the forest then. It's on us to make sure that happens.

What are you talking about? Nuclear energy is fucking great and pretty safe. It really annoys me that things like Project Icarus were cancelled too, because of people bitching about nuclear power used in space travel.

A number of reasons.

First and foremost is practicality. When the USA was formed it was difficult to send information over long distances.
So rather than have each state count the number of votes they elected a representative who would vote on their behalf in accordance with the results of their votes. Said representative would then ride for washington and vote on their behalf.

Second is the cities.
Cities in a popular vote scenario always have greater power due to being large voter blocks. They can exert even greater influence than they already do.
The founders had this idea of a predominantly agrarian and rural USA and wanted to ensure the rural regions were not politically dominated by the cities.
So it got rigged a bit to balance it out.

The American founding fathers explained it. Read the Federalist Papers, learn your history and gtfo until you have.

Well then that's great dude. I wish I could get into a nuclear energy career. But I just don't have the money and the only nuclear plant in my country is a broken down piece of shit. I wish everyone would just stop being such a cuck about nuclear energy. Fuck we could be so advanced right now if we invested more on it that dumb alternative energy projects and more drilling operations. Yeah it might not generate as much money as oil, but it's a lot cheaper once we start to really get into it.

Otherwise, places like Commiefornia, Chimpcongo, and Jew York would practically determine the elections.

That's the case in point.

Why shouldn't all votes be counted equal? That's insane. Living in a city should not dilute the power of your vote.

Look at what happened in the UK because of your kind of shitty system.

UKIP got more actual votes than Lib Dems and SNP combined, but got only a single shitty MP, compared to 10+ and 50+ for the aforementioned parties.

Because it's harder to rig an electoral college vote.

All the illegals mainly live bunched together in California.

Rural America would have no say.

It's far more easier to control the population of a city that the open field of rural land.

Is it really that hard to figure this out?

It's like the progressive stack, only it actually works.

Just because the person who is voted the most for that doesn't necessarily mean that he (or SHE) represents what is actually good for the country.

That's not what democracy is about though. Democracy is mob rule.

this

and then the dems just have to focus on pumping immigrants into a few key states to win every election (which they have been trying)

United States is a federation of states. Historically, each state was supposed to be almost the equivalent of an individual European country. Each state gets a certain share of power in the union.

People who don't get why the USA doesn't use the popular vote usually don't comprehend just how independent the states were supposed to be when the USA was first created. Since Lincoln, state's rights began evaporating.

Smaller states would never have joined the union if the federal election was decided by popular vote.

Its a matter of states rights. Every state gets a say regardless of population size

That's why Democracy (full democracy) is shit.

Democracy is shit period. Everything is shit, period

Why don't the dems just pander to Reps instead? They have no honor and no morals and the only reason they do this is to have a career. So why not just go one party and be done with it?

How naive is it possible to be? Hard workers or landowners or whatever aren't necessarily particularly intelligent, and they certainly have never risen to the top in any society by the property of hard work alone. Intelligence is of course the property that determines intelligence, but good luck suggesting any system based on that.

Some people here seem to think rural people are by some magical providence more redpilled than the rest, but this is not true at all. They just have different buttons to push. In reality city people are much more dangerous to the system exactly because they are more rootless. Rural people are traditionalists, they have that inertia the system loves, which they know how to handle and subvert. City people are easier to sway by populists and easier to get to fight, which in turn is the only real means of change.

So yes, they are easier to control, but they are easier to control in either direction. That's why they are considered too dangerous to get a full vote.

Yes, this is how the system is intended to work. The extreme inertia gives the system plenty of time to react to threats. The propaganda is adjusted to fit the new narrative, the lackies in the sitting corrupt structures are taught how to counter the narrative of the new contenders and resources can be spent on subverting the lieutenants of the threatening faction.

Representative democracy.

I have never know anyone that was from a city that wasn't a faggot one way or another.

Like Bernie's fight for real change?

Extend this logic and realise reptilian overlords invented civilization as a way to entrap humans into a giant mechanistic game which can never be won.

I hate the back to the land cucks, because realistically going primitive is not the answer with the amount of people living on the planet. The answer is to utilize the space of the planet to live on and to stop collecting into giant wasteful toxic dumps of pollution crime and disease.

Efficiency isn't always the solution. It would be incredibly efficient if we just had robots run everything, imprisoned all women into birthing facilities and have them on a baby making cycle with 1% of the population being genetic breeder males who fight each other to the death for one day "Death Day" for the rite to impregnate 365,000 women each for the next year.

This gives us a world population of 365,000,000, 1000 free men, 365 million babies every year to sacrifice to Baal and an uncontrolled wild population of human males you hunt down, capture and force to fight to the death each year.

We need to move away from efficiency and towards meeting the primary ethics and virtues of the greeks: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

Sollution: When it all comes crashing down everyone starves out in less that a year and people realize that without food, meds, basic survival skills, and a ton of shitty infrascture in the way, you're in for a sure death.

No. In our western systems a real populist can't arise at all. It's just not possible. Even if he managed to craft his own propaganda channel, which is theoretically possible today, the inertia of the system I mentioned will keep his faction out of power for decades. During that time so much subversion can be worked by people with influence and resources that the momentum falters.

Bernie was more of the same, Hillary was more of the same. Even Trump is more of the same, even though it's considered heresy here to point out that fact. You must take a step back and realize that if you've lost 1000 dollars, and you regain 10, then yes - it's something to be glad for but it's not a real victory.

Well i'm not American, but i'm telling you guys, don't get too low on spirit because of how jaded the way things are has made you. This is a victory for you guys, a pretty huge one when it comes to moral. If you can beat the full power of the Media and a few billions worth of shilling then you have been show that they really aren't unbeatable. If you keep it up, you will acomplish victories where they count and the windown will go further to the right, but you do need things such as Brexit and Trump to raise morale.

You should ask yourself why libtards and immigrants are concentrated in the major cities and as soon as you leave these urban areas people suddenly become more responsible and 'conservative'. I'm sure it's a big mystery for you

Confirmed clueless. There's been no increase in the average global temperatures in the last 20 years according to the satellites. And it's now called 'climate change' instead of global warming, you should know that. You need an update.

The electoral college is shit, and I say a population vote is better. However, a population vote doesn't work without much stricter election rules/qualifications and a general sense of national or regional responsibility. Plus a family can pump out a bunch of kids and they have more votes just because they reproduced more, and now our rights and rules are decided by whichever group can reproduce the most. Or you can just blast propoganda constantly or only report certain information and now a side wins just because they were louder.

Unfortunately pure democracy doesn't really work. You need some kind of representation and/or limits. The electoral college sucks though, for many more reasons than not reflecting the popular vote. Also the point made about cities making all the decisions is important. You can't have people who don't experience the generally harder rural life be deciding how the country goes. If you zoomed in you would see maybe 85% of the country is red, and almost exclusively were the cities blue. Springfield, IL went red even. One of the bluest state's capitals.

I wonder why op.

Ctrl+F "horse", "travel time". 0 results.
Start by thinking in terms of the logistics of a national election in the pre-telegraph era.

If you don't own land then what do you have to lose if your country goes under?

And that's why land-owners should be allowed to vote and those who don't own land, or even a business for that matter, should not be allowed to vote. Democracy is a farce, period, everybody is not equal and only those who have a vested interest in the country should be allowed to have a say and the rest who don't give a fuck either way should be removed from the process entirely.

...

I don't think you can just not have any voting workers, plus the market is so uncertain that a person's status can change at any time. But the idea is right that you have a lot of people with no stakes or concern making decisions.