Arguments for the electoral college

The left is raging against it and we need to defend it. Here's my argument for the electoral college:
The electoral college makes it way harder to "rig" an election. Think of it; it's much harder that getting a majority vote. You have to win every single state, instead of just making a few hundred thousand deceased people vote for you - So, you have to get an overwhelming number of fraudulent votes in places all across the country to actually "rig" the election. Pic semi-related

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalpopularvote.com/
time.
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They can rage against it all they want. They can't change it. The only argument we need is "what's done is done, deal with it".

Why? The Hegelian Dialectic isn't going to work for them anymore. I'm not sure what Soros thinks he will gain from any of this (or if he still thinks at all beyond blindly repeating tactics without regard for scale or timing)

We live in a democratic republic.

Mob rule is for heathens.

Equitable representation of each state within the Union. Wyoming has a piddly population of about 500,000 and 3 electoral college votes. California has about 40 million and 55 votes. Under a straight democracy California would have about 240 electoral college votes. Wyoming has about 1 vote per 160000 people. Under such a system the people of that state would have virtually no say in how the country is governed and it would essentially be an outright slave/vassal to California's whims. And people in California will not give two fucks about any governance of the federal government and screw over smaller states because candidates would pander solely to California. Wyoming would be better off leaving the union so they can look after their own affairs rather than be shackled to a super state like that.

Just laugh at them and MAGA

Here's my argument: If you did popular vote only- then candidates would only care about LA, NYC, Houston, Chicago, etc. No one would give a fuck about what Montana thinks about the US election. This is to protect the states so that every state has a say in the election. Removing the electoral college would ruin states' rights, which is crazy crazy important. And if you're a special fucking snowflake in Wyoming or Alaska, I know you want your shitty SJW voice heard.

the only argument u need

There is no argument necessary. The cunts want to change what's been in place and worked admirably since olden times just because they're butthurt their queen bitch lost. Next time when they lose the popularity vote, they'll be screaming to get back the electoral system. Fuck 'em.

Here's my argument.

Just agree with them. It will piss them off that they can't spout off whatever parroted attack lines they memorized, because they want to act smug and intellectually superior.

It ain't changing anyway, it would take a constitutional convention. It's more fun to take the wind out of the sails then it is to get into a nuanced discussion with somebody who doesn't want to actually have a discussion, but just wants to scream about things.

It helps get rural vote, but if you really wanted to you change it to electoral votes are evenly distributed through the % of the state on how they won.

So if Trump won Pennsylvania it is 20 electoral votes you could say that they both get 10 votes for Trump and 10 for Hillary

OR

Since its a winner Trump gets 12 while Hillary gets 8 etc. We should keep it but FUCK NO TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY. But this way you get all the population to vote from rural and cities. So places like Cali have Republicans can actually have their voice heard and not throw away their votes to nothing.

Even if the EC is abolished it would only be effective going forward. It's too late to complain about past elections.

lol fuck off.

This, very succinct.

Don't argue for the merits of the EC, they will never be persuaded with that. Just make fun of them, or tell them to grow up and deal with it, or pretend to agree as long as illegal aliens aren't allowed to vote (or only whites can vote since we founded the country).

This is the best strategy. Forget about trying to persuade them. Just trigger them and laugh.

Because it allows California and New York to control the entire country and will result in violent uprising.

That's fucking it.

Because direct democracy is madness. America is an enormous, diverse country where people on the West Coast are culturally different than people in the Deep South who are different from the Midwest who are different from the East Coast. The President needs to represent Americans from all of these groups, yet if there was no electoral collage, candidates would campaign solely in giant-population zones like California and New York and completely neglect middle America.

It's all about achieving a balance between allowing less population-dense regions a voice in government, while justifiably giving greater weight to a high-population state like California. This is why the Electoral College is actually perfect. Cali gets over 50 votes because they're huge, yet a candidate cannot completely ignore the rest of the country because 50 alone – while tremendously beneficial – won't be enough to win the Presidency.

Prevents California from overruling the rest of the country.

California already has its state government in shambles; it doesn't need to do that to the rest of the country

They've also become pro-secession overnight
They adopt whatever cause is socially fashionable. And the ends always justify the means. You can't take them seriously.

Jefferson would rise up overnight if they seceded. The Aqueducts that supply SF and LA would be blocked/shut off and they would die. Fuck those San Angeles wetback fucks.

t. 530 bro

The only way to remove the Electoral College would be a Constitutional Amendment. This would require convincing the South and Midwest ro give up their power to Commiefornia and Jew York who the South and Midwest can't stand.

This will never happen so you just tell them what's up and fuck off.

Direct democracy is mob rule. There is no country on Earth that does direct democracy like the idiots are asking. They did the same in 2000 with Bush.

The simple answer is this. First off they're lucky their states even permit them to vote on their EC members. There's nothing in the constitution that promises that right.

Secondly, it's absolutely unfair that the high pop states like NY and Cali can rule over the rest of the country, and that's what would happen in a direct democracy.

Thirdly, and back on states. The country's called the United STATES of America. States matter. States still have power even if reduced by an expanding unconstitutional fed. The states NEED to matter or the very idea of America vanishes. What is best for Texas is not what is best for Cali and that needs to be reflected in things like the house, congress and the EC for president. And of course higher pop states get more EC members, that's fair and that's fine.

If the vote was direct democracy, the demographics would shift so massively on blue states it's not funny. People don't bother voting in Cali or NY, or Oregon or Washington because they know the big cities go blue and flip them blue. Suddenly, that changes and it starts mattering to vote. Meanwhile, there's also all the little dem pockets in the red states that shift. It's completely unpredictable, but I can promise you there's more republicans that don't bother voting on election night than there are democrats because of the EC.

I've heard this argument be logically defeated though. If you take into account the top 20 biggest cities in the US it doesn't even account for anywhere near 50% of the population. It's actually a very minor percent, I can't remember what it is. Candidates wouldn't be able to win or come close to it if they just paid sole attention to even the largest 30 cities. If you factor in the greater metropolitan area then it brings them closer, but not quite and the greater metropolitan area isn't very homogenous in political view whereas just the city limits would be of like LA would be.
It's not the strongest argument.

A candidate would have to take into account more than just the large cities. A counter could be though that almost all the cities in the US did vote for Clinton, so the cities still hold power over more rural areas. If you look at this election and the counties that are home to big cities, they are all blue. Even Nashville was blue in a sea of red here in TN. Then again TN was red and Nashville and Memphis accounted for roughly 35%.
Idk that angle of argument isn't solid.

The problem is that the cities are ever expanding and the rural areas are not.

Trust me as a country that's just a country and not a federal republic of states, once you remove the stopgap of defending the rights of the rural folk, all that happens is that economy goes full service and the pops congregate on the metro areas.

You're right and so is
This seems the best argument. It does protect the rights of the more rural states and it evenly based on pop due to the increased EC votes for more populous states.

This also. Splitting the votes up according to how much they win in that state seems a lot more fair to everyone involved. If anything it ought to reformed to that.

Heck, why not just let the states decide but encourage percentage based distribution?

I mean, they do it for the primaries. I think that's a lot fairer than the EC.

The other option is really going full county or district level and having those areas vote for ECs that they go into the total pools of the given state.

We have the same "seat filter against pure popular vote" thing here in Canada via the House of Commons, we keep it so that rural areas are not disenfranchised.

We can defend it by putting a bullet in every dem's head tbh.

Nothing wrong with the electoral college. Pic related.

Federalist #68

Only if you take the defined city limits. The Greater metropolitan areas include the majority of the population. Shit, the Greater NYC area comprises about 8 different counties!

Wtf, I love diversity now.

Here's a question: why do the big cities go blue, and what can be done about it? Democrats don't do any good for city folk. The don't do any good for anyone. Why are cities so liberal? What is it about living in a city that turns people into faggots?

Argue why we even need Representatives and Senators to make laws. Why not just have the whole country vote on them like multiple states did with marijuana laws? Why have a Supreme Court when we could have the whole country render a verdict through a vote?

It's unfair that only the Presidency would be chosen by popular vote. The other two branches should get the same treatment. And why stop there? We should have popular votes on department heads, ambassadors, trade deals, treaties, where to send soldiers during war, EVERYTHING.

City-dwellers are like the chaff that blows in the wind - always swept up by fashionable movements and ideals and never settling down on the land and considering any meaningful roots and anchors. Because they are so packed into endless fluidity and transience - the next demolition, the next construction project, the next electronic advertisement, the next neighbour - they never develop an understanding of their heritage and those achievements of past men which are worth preserving. Since constant flux is the normality of their daily lives, they expect politics to be the same, and anyone with even a mildly conservative outlook is therefore 'backwards,' 'behind the times,' 'old-fashioned,' etc.

People in rural areas have strong ties to their land and to their communities; a strong sense of place and identity passed from generation to generation. It is only natural that in these conditions the average braindead city-dweller fails to even comprehend conservatism in general.

That's still just mob rule from the big cities

Our side needs to push reforming the Electoral College to award votes proportionally by district. That would lock us in for Republican victories long enough for us to correct the demographics problem. Republicans are 1 shy from controlling 2/3rds of the state legislatures.

Face it, there would be a fever-pitch of anti-EC sentiment here right now if it had gone to Hildawg and you'd all be calling for its abolishment just like you're mocking the libshits for doing, the only reason you love it now is because it facilitated your guy's win. To deny it is intellectual dishonesty pure and simple.

I actually supported the electoral college before the election. If hillary had won, I would have blamed voter fraud.

TRUMP WON HA HA

Maybe, and maybe you'd join with Trump in decrying the EC as a facet of the whole 'rigged system' the same rigged system that elected Trump.

I have definitely had complaints about the electoral college before. One idea would be to change it to a proportional system. There are a lot of benefits to be had for future elections, and under such a system Trump still would have won this time anyway.

Are you shitting me? Look at city demographics versus rural areas.

Actually I'll give you even further advice – see which places have the fewest white people.

/thread

Let's be real here though. There WAS voter fraud. We saw confirmed reports in Ohio, Floria, and PA. This is fact. Who knows where else it was happening where nobody got caught, since the O'Keefe videos very explicitly said that elections are always rigged for Dems across the nation. It just wasn't enough for her to win this time - you can cheat and still lose.

This rigging is very likely where this "she won the popular vote" bullshit came from. You seriously expect me to believe that millions of Hillary voters who had been completely invisible over the last two years suddenly turned out to vote in spite of their own low agency? We all saw the rally numbers.

No. Fuck off shill.

8 years ago Holla Forums was crying to abolish the Electoral system. Holla Forums did it again 4 years ago. Now that Holla Forums wins, they demand it stay. Oh, Holla Forums. Never change.


There always is. Every election there are stories about people's vote getting changed, etc. Every single election. It just never matters much to the winner. Even Trump said that he's not going to do anything about voter fraud in states he won.

it was called /new/ not Holla Forums

Double dubs confirm, electoral college is great, and so is Trump.

Hang yourself by the neck until dead ctr, we are your opposite, not your equivalent on the right.

That's why I don't like it

It was questionable enough that Hillary won the popular vote when I went to bed at 4 in the morning that night, Trump was ahead by a good million votes and won the popular vote the whole time. But if we succeed that, the vote was within a margin of 1% anyway so it doesn't matter anyway.

The Electoral College is good when we win. It is bad when we lose. The only thing important to me is ensuring that America has a right-wing nationalist government who will build a border wall and deport spics and muslims. I don't overly concern myself with what methods are necessary to achieve this.

This, it's more fair than winner take all and it hugely benefits us.

Also get rid of it being an actual college. There's literally no reason the votes shouldn't automatically be allocated.

Stop trying to defend a democratic process. This isn't Reddit.

1) it stops particular regions (the NE) or geographies (the cities) from running everything
2) traditional states rights arguments
3) here's a novel one: it increases the meaning of every single person's vote by increasing the probability that their one vote will flip the whole election. if you work out that math I hear this is actually true.
4) fuck liberals - the electoral college benefits country folk, ftw!

There's already an existing, easy to understand video floating around for it.

Its a pointless argument and there is no reason to engage in it.


The only states that would support this would be CA and NY.

This whole idea is just agitators trying to plant the idea in peoples minds that Trump is somehow illegitimate.

...

Blow your brains out.

There is unfortunately a reach around on the system in play:

nationalpopularvote.com/

Don't really care about the source, it easily points out all the reasons to keep the system around in an easy to understand way.

Because map related.

Go and cry somewhere else. Your made up stories won't change anything.

And misconstruction things like that isn't polite either.

Back to reddit please

Checked, MAGA!

Republicans don't even campaign or spend money in certain states because of the demographics. If they actually tried to win Commiefornia, etc. they would've won the popular vote too.

This. Have been explaining the same concept at work every day for the last three days. I would kill myself from despair if I had the sincere aim of educating plebs, but it's fun to fuck with people while enjoying the sweet superiority of being correct.

want to know how I know you're new, friend?

THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF ELECTORS FOR EACH STATE SINCE POPULATION HAS CHANGED A LOT. And faithless electors might eventually help them.

Currently arguing with some leftist friends (yes fml) on faceberg about this just now. I've already made several points posted here but this link got posted
time. com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery
and now they're kvetching about "muh slavery"
Counter-argument?