Even Trump, after winning on the Electoral College, opposes the Electoral College.
"Well, I mean, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."
making rats who can't live in the real parts of the country vote mean less has been great for america
Honestly, why not just have direct votes in each state?
I mean, each state is worth 1 EC if we compare it. Win more states, win the election.
This way, California can't just dictate policies, but it's also simple for normies to understand.
The only votes that matter at all right now are votes in swing states.
And if you'd looked at the map, you'd see that the Electoral College does absolutely nothing to prevent a city-dominated election anyway. If you want to devalue cities, then you still need a new system, because the EC doesn't do what you seem to think.
Something like actually would. I don't know if that'd ever pass, but it's the kind of thing you need to support if your serious.
Trump's wrong on this.
He would still win. Consider: a) He would campaign in blue states and not need to actually win them. b) Voters in red states who currently don't vote because their county will be red anyway and therefore their votes don't actually matter would then vote.
You're thinking the ol' "It's wabbit season" reverse psychology trick? I hope so. If he genuinely thinks direct democracy is a good idea than it seriously casts doubt on his ability to lead this country.
Something like the Electoral College is the only thing protecting candidates like Trump from millions of illegal immigrants being bussed in to vote and inflating the vote counts of their opponents.
still butthurt, Holla Forums?
Honestly it doesn't matter what anyone thinks as you'll never get 3/4 of states to ratify an amendment getting rid of the electoral college. It would go against their own interests.
He didn't choose the hand he was dealt. So, he played with what he had.
Let me know when you're done waiting for Hitler
is it just non-gamers or wagecucks that don't understand?
He'll be deporting millions of democrat voters and demoralizing the rest. He only lost the popular vote by a few hundred thousand, meaning that Trump will win the next election's popular vote.
Maybe. People in safe blue states would also have come out more to.
Obviously, if it were a different system, candidates would campaign differently and the state-by-state totals would be different, so the one thing you definitely can't say is exactly what Clinton supporters are saying, that the percentage would be the same except Clinton would have won.
Constitutionally, states can decide their electors however they want, so it doesn't require an amendment. Only that 270 EC votes worth of states enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's already at 165 votes.
If we deport illegals and MAGA, then the overwhelming majority will be voting red well into the future. EC has its uses, but imo it exists also as a failsafe to block mass-brown people voting. If there are significantly less brown people, then the system becomes less useful. Not sure how it could be used against the right though.
Fellate a gun.
Good thing the US is not a democracy.
Just make it so electoral college awards points just on counties alone. Make it so democrats can never win ever again.
I want a world where the lolbergs are the left.
That would be the best world.
Kek the madman. Why doesn't he bring up the riggings though ? You think he's waiting until january to get even more legitimacy ?
A week ago (fuck it was only a week i’m literally fucking losing my mind here my memory is so bad), I remember reading about Trump’s campaign spending. Compared to the other hard blue states, there was a disproportionately large amount spent in New York, which I’m sure he did very early to see if he really COULD win there. The graph of his spending had a fall-off around the beginning of this year, which was obviously him resigning himself to the knowledge that the cunt couldn’t be beaten there.
In solid blue state. I would love if anyone campaigned here.
As trump said, he would've won either way.
Trump is wrong.
Unbridled democracy is literal shit-tier. The founding fathers new this. That's why the united states was created as a republic with representatives and delegates, and the electoral college is a branch of this.
The electoral college exists to prevent high-population areas from having complete tyranny of majority over the rest of the country.
The population of the state of Wyoming, the state with the least population in the united states, is about 584,000. Wyoming has 3 delegates in the electoral college, the minimum amount of delegates possible for a state.
The population of the state of California, the state with the highest population in the united states, is about 38.3 million. California has 55 delegates in the electoral college.
Were we to give each state a completely level playing field in the electoral college, it's natural that we would use our minimum delegate requirement (3) and the state with the lowest population (Wyoming) as our point of reference. Therefore, giving each state equal representation relative to their population size would give California around 200 electoral college delegates, New York 100, and Texas 138.
Obviously, the little guys would have absolutely no chance to compete were this the case.
Were we to abolish the electoral college entirely, the imbalance would be exactly the same. States like California, New York and Texas would completely dominate the election results every single time because of how hugely populated they are. There would be no reason to lobby in the less populated states because, due to the demographic imbalance, what meager support they can give is worthless compared to the giants of the big city states. Even if every single midwest state stood up in defiance, it wouldn't be enough to outcompete the cities due to their sheer numerical disadvantage. There would simply be no political or economic incentive to heed their needs and demands. They would be trapped within a system that is designed to work against their interests.
This. Trump would not have won if it wasn't for the EC. WIthout the EC cities decide the vote, and that's fucking garbage-tier commie trash.
Be realistic, dubsguy. EC exists for a reason, kept Gore out of the white house and got Trump into it.
sounds great to me
suddenly: yeah, then US could roll with popular vote
Except that Donald won the popular vote. There were at least 3 million illegal votes.
i don't feel like being ruled by CA,and the big cities.
And those illegal votes were still counted thanks to a corrupt administration, put some effort into your shitposting, Moishe.
Is that supposed to be better than the Presidency being owned by Florida and Ohio?
Look at the map in OP again. THE EC DOESN'T PROTECT YOU AGAINST THE THING YOU THINK IT DOES
I would rather ohayo decide the election than LA, Jew York, and Denver.
Trump won the electoral college and trump also won the popular vote
but all this because the system is like that, and not all people feel like their vote matters
a republican in California isnt as motivated to go out and vote as a republican in a swing state
50% of the eligible votes apparently didn't vote this election and that's because of the system
we don't know and can't foresee what the results would be in another system
The electoral college gives whites an advantage. The rust belt that swung to Trump this election were predominately white states that are whiter than the national average.
Over half of the foreign born population in America lives in either California (solid blue) and Texas (solid red for now) which essentially negates the votes of half of all foreign born. The rest of the foreign born population is dispersed disproportionally in either solid blue or solid red states. The electoral impact of post 1965 immigrants is severely dampened because of the electoral college. I'm going to make a guesstimate and say due to the electoral college it's like America is 80% white instead of 60% white. That essentially makes it so that the electoral effect of diversity is cut in half.
Another thing is diversity is heavily in cities and the way congressional districts are set up in most states it means the effect of diversity on congress is minimal. And in the senate California gets the same number of senators as Wyoming.
If you want to get rid of the electoral college the non white population in the US will have full effect. Whites will be disenfranchised and we can only speculate whether that's a good or bad thing.
Let me put this in perspective for you. The hundred thousand white voters in the rust belt that tipped the states to Trump had more electoral effect than the entire population of California. The weight of each of those individual voters in the rust belt was 500 times greater than a voter in California.
I'm still waiting for the next (((twist))) in the story. The college may still vote for Clinton in december.
No, this was a stroke of genius. Trump spent weeks calling the Electoral College a sham, he got the entire liberal establishment rabidly calling him out for it, calling the EC system sacred, and whatever the result is, it must be accepted!
Then the usually blue states voted for Trump. Whoops! I guess they're right and they can't do anything about his win. :^)
If any of you newfag retards actually think that abolishing the electoral college would ever be a good thing, gas yourself. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Remember that appeal to the majority is literally a logical fallacy. If the cities could completely control the rural areas, what would stop the cities from getting together and voting in pro-city, anti-rural people? If they were successful enough at siphoning off the resources in the rural areas, the rural areas would starve, and then next the cities would topple because there is no actual production left. The electoral college is meant to balance the scales of power, but still give the cities their say as well. Republics are meh, but they can work fairly effectively. Direct democracies are shit tier cancer. Also remember that the average normie is a bluepilled idiot. Average IQ = shit IQ. If you actually want a republic to function better than bare minimum, you need to severely restrict who is allowed to vote.
Go look up the population of the cities. Seriously, go compare it to the rural areas right now. If you really want government controlled by a bunch of pseudo-Marxists, the same ones who want open borders, and who are throwing a collective temper tantrum because the, fairly centerist, Donald Trump got elected, then abolish the electoral college.
I don't even know what your point is ? You're calling everyone a jews so you can fit in ? I'm saying that we can substract (at least) 3 million from Hillary's votecount which means he effectively won the popular vote. The only people that say otherwise are the lügenpresse and the leftists.
Slimy kike left does shit like this all the time gas yourselves
WTF is he thinking?
It won't get passed. Even if it did, it wouldn't matter.
It's a good thing for him to say since lefties are still reeling over the election. He's winning over the moderates/educated and further demolishing the media. That's important to being effective and getting re-elected.
This is indeed 4d chess.
People don't understand that the "conservatives" in blue states more often than not are far less right-wing. It's not just the politicians.
I disagree with Trump but see where he is coming from. I think he is annoyed at the idea of faithless electors and so on, as well as whole states essentially being held hostage by corrupt inner city voter fraud.
Which were counted as legit votes until after the Don won. We all knew there were shittons of illegitimate votes being counted, there's probably far more than even the three million reported.
If hillary had won this would have been swept under and ignored, so saying "he won the popular vote if you ignore these things" doesn't matter.
The electoral college prevented these shenanigans from hillary winning. It not only did not fail like so many are quick to think it did thanks to the popular vote vs electoral count, it explicitly did its job of not letting just a few places overwhelm every place else.
No electoral college would make it easier to rig too since you could just focus on one or a few counties to swing the vote of the entire country
After Trump deports the illegals, sends nigger conscripts off to die fighting ISIS, and raises White birth rates, popular vote will be to our benefit.
Yes it does, because you're only looking at population and completely ignoring demographics. Part of the electoral college's purpose is to maintain the integrity of population demographics when it comes to voting in the US election. Even though those eleven states are all it takes to win the presidency, they never can be. The demographics of the people in Georgia and the people in New York are too different.
The reason why states like Ohio and Florida are swing states is because their demographics tend to represent America's mainstream political alignment (and are the states that do so with the highest population). In other words, they're the "normie" demographic, the people who represent America's cultural zeitgeist at large. (Consider that Florida rarely ever votes for a losing candidate.) This is why securing them is significant: not because of population numbers, but because they are literally the physical representation of Overton's Window in America. What they vote tends to be a mirror to what America values.
No electoral college means California and NY could have 100% turn out and not a damn thing could be done about it. That's why the electoral college was created to stop high population states from running the country.
You can understand why a Democrat would want to abolish the electoral college. But a Republican that wants to abolish it or someone that supports a Republican has lost their damn mind.
The electoral college is shit, but pure populace vote is far, far worse.
The electoral college isn't shit. It's a godsend for white America when it comes to electoral politics.
The electoral college we have has a lot of problems my friend. But hey, I'm still saying it's better.
The electoral college has no problems and only advantages if you're a Republican and have a majority of whites behind you. GOP voters are 90% white. Fascists could take over the GOP.
The one thing i've learned this election is to trust that Trump will make the right decision at the end of the day. This may be one of his "4d chess moves". Make his supporters uneasy to find the problem and address it accordingly (IE: Mike Pence gutting lobbyists from transition team)
Also we know he was just salty about the 2012 election and making these new comments to not seem like a liar/flip flop and contradict the shit out of himself. He's going to play it cool saying he disagrees with it but nothing will change
Especially this. Who the fuck wants the kind of demographics that infest NY and Cali to decide for the whole country. Reminder that this is only a subject of discussion because libtards literally can't contain their butthurt.
The blue state voters come out anyway because they had things to vote for this year. For example, in CA they were voting for weed and they were voting for senate between two Democrats, there was no incentive for Republicans to waste their time voting.
Either way, getting rid of the EC is a shit idea. This system was meant to protect entrenched landowners outside of cities, in this era that means the people who built this country and pay taxes.
What competition was that in the picture?
This. Go take a look at Minnesota's republican primary results earlier this year. Marco Rubio beat Cruz (who was the most conservative of all of the candidates) and Cruz beat Trump (who is the answer to a lot of conservative's problems that the establishment didn't give them).
I'm pretty sure it was like rifle-shooting or something like that. Of course America got first, har har har.
I'm thinking it could be this. He's sort of redpilling the left on how rigged our system is.
I could also see this. Perhaps as insurance in case the EC betrays us? I don't see why he would do this though; according to the (((official results))), Hillary won the popular vote. Trump is pretty fucking optimistic if he actually thinks he could've won the popular vote in libshitholes like California and New York, or any major city for that matter.
Fuck the Holla Forums hivemind – this really was stupid on Trump's part.
It's a good tool to counter electoral fraud and illegals voting.
They should only abolish the EC if they make a federal law that ID cards are required to vote. That would make rigging harder.
How to improve the EC: remove california from the union. The race to 240 instead of 270 wouldn't hinge on Ohio and Florida.
I don't know if you're a kike or just a misinformed cuckchanner, but either way you need to gas yourself because you stick out like a sore thumb here
You mean Trump would have won regardless of EC if voter ID laws were enforced and democrats didn't vote beyond the grave
We can read dates, shill.
sage in options field
lolbergs are open borders globalists, fuck off
Remember when Trump said he would not challenge the result if he won? Now he can't challenge his own result or he'd be going back on his word.
Make EC be one point per county. Regardless or size or anything else
oh yeah, it's not winner takes all in states, but winner takes all in counties
Am I correct in assuming all the blue spots are Leftist shitholes?
With the current system, you need to commit voter fraud in multiple states.
Get rid of the electoral college and you only need to commit voter fraud in California.
Sorry faggot, but the majority decides. If you don't like it, then move to North Korea.
Killary only won the popular vote because of massive rigging and illegals in Cali voting anyway.
No, you are stupid. Trump is going to make the cities great again, so the whites will return and start making things again. The reason the big cities are blue is because all the people who were worth a fuck fled them long ago. After they come back, right wing candidates will be able to campaign MUCH more easily.
Personally I think cities should not exist.
Then go live in the Khmere Rouge, you dumb fuck.
Cities are high efficiency production mechanisms. Get them out of the control of insane leftists and they are great places to live and work.
without the EC there would be many states that would secede.
It would be a civil war. Maybe that's a good thing or a bad thing I dunno. but it would happen 100%
Trumps popularity is still growing.
Cities do not produce nationalists. Cities make the people weak and soft.
Combined with voter ID, otherwise it's giving the democrats victory on a silver platter.
He was probably caught off guard there, would not worry too much. The popular vote meme will die off once Trump begins building the wall.
Fuck the EC, everything should be equal!
So there is 51 votes.
Ok is there a picture of state's political status? I want to know if the republican is majority or not. If it is majority then good because libtards will not have much power over federal government.
NO nonononononono No, the electoral colleges look really dumb on paper but when you get down to it, they make a whole lot of sense.
I honestly thought the same thing as many of you, they are stupid and outdated, until i realized this.
This year, cali had about 5 million votes for the democratic party, thats about the entire population of utah and Nevada combined, not even voting age, just pure straight population. So what happens then, is less then half of a state, has more say then 3 states combined. I dont know about you all but i know i think a hell of a lot differently then cali so i would like my opinion to matter.
Also, all the states save for 2, operate off a winner take all system, meaning if you win the popular vote in the state, you win the electoral votes in that state as well.
Its better to think of the election not as a popular vote of the nation, but the popular vote of each state, and who ever gets the most wins on the state popular votes win.
Else, NY, LA, Huston, and miami would be the cities that would decide the election each year, and well, im not a libral faggot so.
Trump won 30 states, Hillary took 20
I'd rather see us switch to congressional districts, since a pure popular vote is super easy to rig and allows states like Commiefornia to control elections.. and Commiefornia could do it because they are so focused on indoctrinating their children.
Either way, I can respect his integrity on the matter, but politics is a complex beast. The winner of the vote can't just be more popular or have more support. It needs to be about widespread support across as many different states, counties, districts, and areas.
Democrat run cities and states think they know best for the world, but when you look at them closely, you find that they are hellholes. Corrupt, crumbling piles of shit overrun with death and drugs with imploding economies and degenerate politicians abusing their citizens for a quick buck.
Those places do not represent America or hold its best interest at heart, but they have the power to entirely control elections in a straight popular vote system. At least with congressional districts, the red parts of blue states could keep the corrupt parts from controlling things.
Obviously, 1 state 1 vote benefits small states and voting by population benefits large states.
EC is the compromise.
Just like Congress.
We are a union of states.
So with your idea and he wins anyway. I think it's okay as long as the state stay red.
It baffles me how shockingly bad people are at maths, they can't even understand what causes are responsible for which consequences. The reason why it is possible for a president to be elected without the popular vote is not the electoral college system, it's the "winner takes all" system.
Good system. What reason would a state have to be part of USA if it can't have any decision power?
The Modern USA is home to 3 powerful States as per this definition:
The Democratic State. It commands the most destructive weapons of these 3 States. It employs people from all around the region it governs. It provides protection services and demands obedience in return. It uses a democratic process to periodically select its leadership, and everyone else tries to control this State by having its personnel elected. Gridlocks are common. The Democratic State also doesn’t believe other States are possible or do not know how to deal with them. The Intolerant Leftist State centered around university towns, cities in general and California. It is comprised of non-Caucasoid peoples, people who have alternative sexual lifestyles and feminists. Of these, the black liberation movements hold the most promise for actually conducting violence when it comes to killing another group of people. Hence, The Intolerant Left will eventually be led by Black people, and if they are smart they will use the other non-Caucasoids, feminists, and people alternate sexual lifestyles for boosting their legitimacy. They coordinate using universities and NGOs funded by billionaires. This State owns all modes of persuasion like the media and entertainment. They are internationalist by nature and can persuade even other States to do their bidding. The Leaderless Traditionalist State centered around rural or sub-urban areas and Texas. They are gun owners and believe in traditional values like racially and religiously defined State. They coordinate over the Internet because they are not allowed to hold meetings outside. They are leaderless because their leaders are ostracized or attacked or murdered for trying to lead.
only after deporting all the illegals, building a wall, defunding sanctuary cities, getting voting machines that are auditable, passing voter ID laws, and ink-marking laws
Well, if his Presidency goes as planned (and it's going pretty damned great right now, and he hasn't even been sworn in) then there's a chance that even with the current system, his next run will go even better.
Think of what Trump says in a 4 year limit. He could even say: build a giant mosque, after there would be no muslims left to go to it.
Trump loves muslims, he built them a Mosque.
Oh, I absolutely agree. If you thought 2016 was a landslide, just wait till you see 2020.
Kek they turn it into an Eastern Orthodox or Catholic Church because of how few Muslims go their.
The ridiculous thing is he won Suffolk county… That's amazing in itself
Real talk This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard Trump say - consistently stupid, perhaps, but still incredibly stupid.
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic - and for good reason: democracy is shit. Doubly so in a scenario wherein Federal election have no Federal mandate to prove citizenship. You can't have fucking California allowing illegals to get a driver's license without proving citizenship, auto-registering to vote anyone who gets a driver's license, allow people to vote in Federal elections without any proof of ID, and then talk about 'democracy' as though it fucking means anything.
The popular vote is completely meaningless, and should be, if this is the broken mechanism we intend to continue employing, short of INTENSE and total-coverage alteration to the voter-ID/registration laws - I got no problem abolishing the electoral college if, say, only White male citizen property owners can vote, but that's not where we stand.
Nobody would be making a fucking peep about the electoral college if Clinton had won it.
Trump is wrong, just as he's wrong about Snowden being traitor.
You don't know a damn thing you rural idealist hack. The only reason cities are weak and soft is because kikes have completely concentrated as part of a top down approach to undermining the country.
Trump has a habit of speaking without thinking when he's caught with questions he hasn't thought about too hard. Remember when Chris Matthews asked him about stopping abortion, and Trump replied that the mothers would have to be punished? He will talk with his advisors and experts, come to understand the purpose of the EC, and either move on to more important issues, or approach a way to improve it without just making it a literal popularity contest so that everyone is happy.
I'm no expert on the subject but I think
is a valid approach
This. It's just like the vaccine thing and other issues. He hasn't been informed enough on them yet.
filtered and reported
Seems like a fake tweet.
crush the urbanite
So let's let California and New York decide every election. That'll work out.
Flip flopping on fag marriage, being evasive on abortion, being completely fucking retarded with the EC. Is he just regurgitating shit from advisors now? I'm gonna be fucking pissed if he becomes a centrist AFTER he was elected when becoming a centrist is actually worth something.
Cities used to produce nationalists but the kikes have done a great job driving the white workers who would be nationalists out of cities. All that is left are the elite and their minorities.
Only the EC brings all states into play. If it was popular vote only, only NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston would matter.
You don't think we can make New York great again? Or maybe Detroit needs it more.
Trump plz no
Unless Trump plans to massively deport all the nonwhites and somehow make cities red, then that would be a terrible idea.
City boys get so defensive.
Direct Democracy is great if you want to accelerate towards civil war
How could a city produce anything but pampered cityboys like you? You live in luxury, completely dependent on outside sources to feed you (grocery stores and tap water) and police to protect you. You have no connection to nature and you come into contact with more people daily than is healthy for the human mind, forcing you to become hostile towards your fellow man.
Face it - cities are not a good place for healthy minds.
The overwhelming majority of counties in the US are red. I'm not saying that the idea is a bad one, but there would need to be a compromise between county and state EVs. Perhaps giving each state electoral votes dependent on their percentage of population within the United States (as discussed here ) and then awarding each county one electoral vote as well. There's really no reasonable or fair way to run a vote though. The best way to manage a democracy (or republic) is to limit suffrage.
It's virtually impossible to abolish the electoral college. It would take a sustained effort for almost 10 years to get it done. Never going to happen.
Need to be focusing on more important things right now. And if Barbara Boxer supports this nonsense, you know it's not the direction we want to be going in.
If red votes mattered in blue states they would go out and vote. there is really no point in showing up in NY or Cali. There would need to be ID however or you just get dead people and illegals voting. Until that is fixed electorial college is keeping things in check
Over 4 years ago.
REPORT + HIDE + SAGE
I wonder how those clueless fucks feel when they were supporting a crooked president and a war that was rather dishonest in the end?
Hillary won the popular vote only because she had illegals voting for her as well as engaging in other forms of voter fraud.
Quit saying this, it's not true, even when qualifying the statement don't say this false nonsense.
I disagree with Trump here. I think the electoral college is good and serves its purpose well. I don't want major cities dictating the course of the country against the will of the other 95% of the country. That said, I don't give a shit if we disagree on this. I still like his polices. Fuck off…
I don't think we should abolish the EC entirely. It does serve an important function. It should also be noted that ONLY the President and Vice President are chosen by the EC. Your Congressman, Governor, Sheriff, Mayor, and whatever are still chosen by popular vote.
However, the reason there's an amendment clause in the US Constitution is because the framers of the document were smart enough to know that times change and that the Constitution was never meant to be carved in stone. We can reform the Electorate without abolishing it. I see no reason why we the people can't figure out a way to modernize the EC so that it fits well with the current Republic.
Holy fuck, that's a recipe for civil war. Let's decide an election based on an untested, arguably unconstitutional "agreement." It'd be an orgy of faithless electors, litigation, and states failing to abide by the agreement when their guy would lose because of it.
butt-flustered and salty
She did though. That doesn't mean she won it without illegals or voter fraud, though.
Fuck off, no she didn't.
Generation of "everyone gets a trophy" spotted. You know who whines about "not fair" after the ball game is over? The loser.
Illegal votes don't count, therefore, she did not win the popular vote.
How you frame an argument effects interpretation.
Fucking hang yourself, cuckchanner. There is video proof of Democratic Party operatives admitting to voter fraud, and this isn't even including the (likely) millions of illegals who voted in the general election.
you're just arguing semantics at this point when we're both talking about exactly the same thing.
Not this time.
Semantics matter in the meme war faggot.
And you're still arguing instead of … I wonder why…
In order for that to be true, you have to prove illegals voted. Not to mention how they managed to vote without so much as a Social Security number (which is put on the voter registration application) or any form of voter registration.
Even in California if you walk into a voting place without any form of identifying information, you are handed a "provisional ballot". If you don't come back to the voter registrar with the pertinent information, your vote gets tossed out. So, any illegals who went to vote were given a provisional ballot and required to return within a certain amount of time with proper identifying information. If illegals did vote, their votes were tossed out.
No, there really isn't. When you keep your head up your ass long enough, you start to hallucinate from the shit fumes. I suggest you pull out while you still can.
Demographically fucked. If we could cleanse the non-white and faggot filth out of the city, it would be a pretty nice place, since it still has functioning infrastructure and buildings.
Same demographic problem, but with the added bonus of resembling a post-apocalyptic bombed-out hellscape from a dystopian cyberpunk novel. Both would have to be purged of all subhumans, but NYC actually has buildings and infrastructure headstart, so I would imagine it has a better chance. Problem is, Detroit has a history of heavy industry and I don't see modern NYC having the ability to open gigantic plants to actually build shit again. (I'm talking cars, airplanes, etc: huge, big-ticket stuff that requires a ton of resources and manpower.)
Lying kike detected. Apparently you weren't around for the O'keefe video releases. There is a video of New York Democratic Party official admitting to voter fraud involving the bussing of people from polling station to polling station.
I thought CTR lost all their funding after madame cunt lost the presidency. Why haven't you found another job?
I saw many hilariously edited videos. Difference between you and me, kid, is that I don't believe something just because it's on youtube.
I assume you'll say that's because "THEY" don't want you to see it.
Oh for fucks sake, now you're just trying to weasel out of it. That's A video going over it, it's the fucking source, so fuck right off.
Not the source.
Fact of the matter comes down to this: As of this moment (of this post) Hillary Clinton has the popular vote by ~700,000. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference, however, because popular vote doesn't determine the President. In order for the EC vote to be swayed to Clinton's side on 12/19, there would have to be ~30 "faithless electors".
That's not going to happen. 1 or 2 maybe, but 30? No. Even trying to sway the Electorate is a joke, so you can all stop worrying about those 700,000 some-odd votes Clinton has over Trump at this point. I'm sorry Trump didn't have a landslide historical victory with 100% of the vote, but that virtually never happens either.
Besides, it's not like it's the first time the candidate with the popular vote didn't win the Electorate. The country someone manages to go on.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment.
Which will no doubt prove quite difficult, given the places illegals were most-likely to vote are also the places most-likely to attempt to conceal such - even so, several fraud analysis organizations have noted the presence of millions of illegal votes.
Under California law, you are auto-registered to vote upon acquiring a driver's license, and you do not have to prove citizenship to acquire a driver's license in California, nor does California have voter-ID laws, soooooooo… > dailycaller .com/2015/10/13/napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-vote-for-the-next-president-video/ … That's how they managed to vote, by the millions, and that's just one example.
Bullshit - California has no voter-ID laws, thus they cannot exclude your ballot on the basis of lacking identification.
Not an issue in California, as the names of these individuals ARE on the official voter registration list. Not relevant here.
See also: As they have a driver's license from the state of California, that won't be an issue, meaning no provisional ballot.
IOW: You're fulla shit cunt.
The video claims 3 million illegals voted and shows some buses and some people who "might" look alike. I'm not convinced.
People get bused to voting polls all the time and there are many people who offer such services to the elderly and people who can't or don't drive. Nobody is on that bus telling them how to vote - because that's actually illegal.
The only arrest made in this entire election for voter fraud was a Trump supporter in Iowa who voted twice. I'm guessing that's all part of the conspiracy, though, right?
Now I know you're trolling.
Yeah, except there's a problem with your assessment. You can't vote with an AB-60 driver's license. Nice try, though.
The truth is never trolling. Your fee-fees want Trump to have a 100% victory, but that's not going to happen. Man up and move on.
Hah! What a bald-faced lie. No. No, you do not need to provide ID at the polling place. The Dems have fought like tigers to make sure you don't, because they know what side their bread is buttered on.
Your ID is supposed to be verified when you register, but if it's not, you MAY be asked for it at the polling place (hint: they're not going to ask if you look like you'll vote for the right candidate). They absolutely can't ask for ID otherwise, because that would be raciss.
You're spouting bullshit and now this gem. 0/10
Stop debating the shill newfags, it's not going to get anywhere.
If you insist on engaging, remember your audience is the lurking newfags, to minimize the effect of the kike spreading cancer by correcting his disinfo. There's no point trying to win a debate with a kike, they're shifty, slippery liars with no sincerely stated beliefs, only ulterior motives. It's a worthless effort.
Conspiritard nonsense. I bet you'd love /r/thedonald
And yet the only arrests made for voter fraud was of Trump supporters.
A dubious claim, but irrelevant all the same, given King Nigger was handing out SSNs.
> washingtontimes. com/news/2015/feb/12/obama-amnesty-creates-loophole-for-illegal-immigra/ Which of course drew the typical and immediate reply of 'muh voter suppression'.
Point is: Large numbers of illegals UNDOUBTEDLY voted in this election - meaning, in terms of fact, Hillary Clinton is still losing, because illegals are not factually citizens, thus their votes do not factually matter.
For the benefit of those who have never voted or have very short memories, no, they don't ask for ID when you vote.
Go vote, and you'll see. There's no ID requirement to vote in most states, including CA, and you're lying when you say there is. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the law.
You're right, I know, but I can't help myself.
Yup, that's how metric fucktons of dead people manage to regularly vote.
We should have the registrations tototally purged and start fresh, but the liberal trash will be out in droves wailing about it 'muh voter suppression' in the blink of an eye, because they know that doing so would loses them large numbers of votes in key areas.
I've voted in 7 presidential elections, served twice as an Election Judge. I think by now I know how it works.
The president does not have the power to remove the electoral college.
That was before he won.
Fools, the United States is a Republic and not a shit Democracy. I prefer a National Socialist state tbh fam but Republic > Democracy said Cicero
What state? If it's CA you clearly don't, because they don't require ID. Pic very related; it's from that crazy right-wing Mother Jones magazine.
I voted in CA last week you faggot. You don't have to show ID. It's a free-for-all
And you can trust me, my dad works for nintendo!
The funny part is, you can verify voter ID requirements or lack thereof in less than a minute, not to mention the fact that we all probably voted one week ago and remember perfectly well that no ID is needed. There's no need at all to take some anonymous liar's word for it.
Yeah, no problem chaim:
SSN-BASED VOTER VERIFICATION AND A WORLD WHERE CONSERVATIVES IN BLUE STATES LIKE CA ND NY HAVE A REASON TO GO TO THE POLLS SOUNDS GREAT
Fucking morons have no idea what they are asking for
fraud is real and used almost-exclusively by the left, in manners which make it extremely difficult to verify, especially without local cooperation, which is never forthcoming in the deep-Blue territories where it transpires most. People are aware of it, and are tired of it.
People should take note of this shit. Watch how in the first post he makes an unsupported claim of only arrest for voter fraud was a trump supporter and then the next time he brings it up it's arrests. THIS IS HOW KIKES ARGUE Learn to spot it every time.
That's not what was being played, kike. You sure do like distorting reality, don't you? Nice job proving yourself as an outsider, CTR. Your handlers should fire you for shitty shilling.
Here's a reason to get rid of EC - it encourages illegal immigration for political gain.
checkidy checked PRAISE KEK
So he's only pretending to understand States' Rights?
Looking at your "EC map by county" compared to the state one for this year I don't think you burgers should erase the EC. I think you should change it from: "The most votes in each state gets the points" to "The person who wins the most counties in a state, gets the points."
That way an entire states fate doesn't hinge on a few population dense counties.
.t Bong who might/probably be wrong.
Womens 10 meter air rifle. Air rifles and shotguns are all that's allowed so you don't see many Americans.
because we prefer using real guns
Wait… they do have rifle and pistol… short range stuff only though… disregard previous post I'm retarded and probably suck cocks
Were the vote limited to only men with a stake in this country as it once was, Trump would have a point. In a country where every woman and her pet faggot has a say, abolishing the EC is too risky.
But he's technically right either way. This isn't actually democracy. Thank God.
Why is no one reading the date on the tweet? 2012…this is before he had first hand experience of the election process. OP os a kike and lied saying it was after the 8th.
Now correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the Electoral College supposed to keep states with high populations running roughshod over those without? I mean, I know Nebraska has the fucking Single Vote (REAL GAMECHANGER) but Commiefornia and the west cost have enough pull as it is, they instantly vote Dem, wont their numbers lend the same bullshit strength to one party disproportionately?
Keep the electoral college, but take away the winner-take-all electoral votes.
If a state has, say, 8 electoral votes, and you win more than 6/8% but less than 7/8% of its' popular vote, you get 6 electoral votes.
If anyone fails to get that final 1/8% threshold, then the popular vote winner takes the final 1/8%. So add an extra 1 vote to that 8-state winner's amount.
The tweet is from 2012. The post-election interview where he re-affirms his position was after the election.
That is what some people seem to think that it does but there's two problems: political division are now sharper between urban/rural than between different states, and when you remember that when the EC has matched the popular vote 90+% of the time anyway, it should be obvious that if that's what it's supposed to do, it's failing anyway.
In my example, Louisiana (8 electoral votes) Donald Trump got 58.1% and Hillary Clinton got 38.4%. That was good enough to win 4 votes outright for Trump and 3 for Hillary. Since no candidate had an 1/8% threshold (non-Trump/Hillary votes in Louisiana was 3.5%) then Trump, as the popular winner, gets the last vote. 5 Trump, 3 Hillary.
Visits and millions of dollars spent on campaigning in 2004, from Wikiped.
These are the only states that have any power to influence Presidential politics under the EC.
That's a start, but it still keeps one of the main problems of the EC: that minority votes in a state don't count for anything.
People keep talking about "muh big cities" ignoring that the EC makes all of the red counties in update New York and California completely worthless. And it's even worse than it seems, because you know that way more Republican voters would bother to come out to vote if they didn't already know that they might as well just write "TRUMP" on a piece of toilet paper and flush it for all the good it would do.
If we did it by counties, it would be better to dispose of states entirely and just count by counties.
Of course, now the cities wouldn't count for anything, and since they have the most people and pay the bills, it wouldn't last.
Exactly. Hate Hamilton for the national bank, but his federalist papers on the electoral college and other things are pretty good.
Would be the first time U.S. history if 30+ electors switched their votes at once. Easier to cause a recession or terrorist attack then risk the proof of tyranny by having the electors vote contrary to the vote of their states.
What about if the electors were awarded proportionally like in Maine? Would that still work, or would it just end up being identical to direct popular vote?
To be fair there are a number of different methods that sound better but in practice would probably diverge. At the end of the day, the Wall, Jobs, and Security must come before we deal with the particularities of our system.
That's a broken system. California has been allowed to go super blue due to how unlikely it crossing 50% is and that allowed it to become a breeder for supercancer which has leaked out across America. Also, whites are too smart for their own good and talk themselves out of voting in these blue states knowing their vote won't count while minorities just vote regardless. This results in down-ballot issues/candidates going super blue as well.
What we need to do is feel lucky that we managed to win out over the libshit hordes, and promptly work to abolish any form of democracy at all and bring in autocracy under Donald and friends AKA go full natsoc or at least Pinochet tier
And then we commence the purge
What we need to do is feel lucky that we managed to win out over the libshit hordes, and promptly work to abolish any form of democracy at all and bring in autocracy under Donald and friends AKA go full natsoc or at least Pinochet tier.
And then we commence the purge
A few days ago we were calling the urbanites fags and now we're turning on the ruralfags? Dude, don't get blinded, Trump is probably just playing because he doesn't want to seem contrarian.
Give cities extra poins then based on what they do for the country. That's why California has so many votes, right? So the average county should have like 1 point, and a city like Jew York should have something like 20. But only the top ten cities should have such powers, the rest of the cities should have 10 and 5. Big sized counties could have as much as a small city, 5, and medium counties could have 3.
Urbanites are still fags but being completely ignored by the right due to the EC lets them gather power with no resistance.
Only if the number of electors per state was adjusted to mirror the population of the state. Otherwise sparsely populated areas would still be favored over population centers.
Commiefornia is blue because it's choke full of spics, both legal and illegal and no voter id law. Campaigning there is a waste of resources
Which is why this is dumb. No matter how much Trump campaigned there EC or not the spics would have voted Clinton if just for the free shit.
California was always like that. The same goes for Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida and Nevada.
There's a reason for it too if you go back a hundred and seventy years or so.
Looking at the second map. Blue is literally behaving like cancer.
just redo the ec vote numbers to shake up the swing states they havent been updated in a while i think
situation: one populated county in L.A., CA goes 100% blue because blue promises specific bonus to that city and county, every other county in CA goes 70 30 red. CA goes blue. how much more bullshit would this be in a popular vote?
Didn't Reagan term them blue by giving amnesty to spics?
good that trump is consistent but this is a stupid fucking idea. electoral college gives more power to less populated, more rural, less diverse, more white, states.
they keep saying clinton won the popular vote she didn't but you see her huge margins in california alone. purely popular voting leaves the easily influenced public at the mercy of the (((media))) to manipulate and control.
tbh getting rid of the electoral college seems like a move straight out of the protocols. jews love democracy because the people are easy to manipulate and political power is left divided. when everyone else is set against each other, israel is strong!
The founding fathers had this same thought, that the people are too easily influenced by outside powers. More true today then it was back then, thank god they created the EC.
Abolishing the EC would be fine as long as there's a property-owning requirement. That way, people who vote would actually have a common interest aligned with the government as opposed to "gibsmedat" and "how dare you actually intend to enforce the law, you racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic fascist"
Socialism in any form is cancer. Fascism will eventually lead to tyranny as there is no dissenting voice to keep the ruling party in check. Universal suffrage democracy leads to degeneracy and minorities holding too much sway over the majority. The only system that is indefinitely sustainable is a pseudo-fascist democracy where a small number of people hold the power to vote or hold office, yet there is room for multiple factions within that group of persons.
Starship troopers model of a constitutional republic works also, only people who contribute to a republic should have any influence, and their should be a nonegalitarian tiered system in which factors like military experience, occupation, taxes paid, hours of community service, etc. should determine how many votes you get. A veteran with 10,000 hours of community service, no criminal record, in a highly skilled occupation who pays a lot of taxes would have like 10 votes while Jamal would have zero since living on welfare and ruining neighborhoods contributes nothing to society, and average people would have 1-3 depending on how much work they put into things that Make America Great Again. The number of votes you earn would also open doors to government positions like being a delegate, working as a legislator, etc. A tiered republican government would be ideal as long as the ranking/voting system is fair. I know it is not popular to say so here but Fascist government only works if you luck out and get a benevolent leader like Hitler, and people like him are one in a million, otherwise it turns into tyranny very quickly. Democracy is shit for obvious reasons also.
If you remove the electoral college you might as well call it the day and expect to become a nigger run country.
Remember cuckchanners and newfags from reddit are mostly degenerates who think we are edgy and trendy , they think we won because we were funny where in reallity we won because we were right and uphdolded the truth over all, upholding the truth above all guide us to the the values we share and used to share in this board.
You just need to see the demographics , the honest and hard working people that decided it was enough sealde the kikes fate.
Order , tradition , discipline , loyalty and care for our family managed to get Trump to the white house.
Precisely this. There needs to be checks and balances within the system or tyranny will eventually follow. Imagine what would have happened had it been Churchill instead of Mussolini. Rome wouldn't have fared nearly so well.
Any form of government, but especially an autocracy is only as good as the person in charge. Without means to remove and replace that person, the whole system eventually falls into tyranny.
Meanwhile, there's a real life example of what I propose, and it's been a stable organization for close to 2000 years, and at one point was the most powerful organization in the world - the Roman Catholic church. You have the congregation who has little or no say in the running of the church, then you have the patriarch, bishops, archbishops, and eventually the pope, all of which are volunteers from the congregation who enter into church service. All of these have some power, but in varying degrees. Once a pope is selected, he leads the church for life, but can be removed if he is not following the best interests of the church (it has happened on a few occasions).
Like I said, it's a system that's worked for nearly 2000 years (and may actually be the oldest functioning government on the planet when you consider it in the context that it is a government), and has had very few hiccups during that time span - mostly arising due to over-expansion or conflicts with regional rulers. If you strip out the religious aspects, and replace them with fascist ideologies (nationalism, homogeneity, traditionalism), you set up a form of government proven to stand the test of time, and combine it with ideas proven to stand the test of time. The final government that is created should be able to endure and serve its population indefinitely.
I think I prefer the globalists to you.
Are you out of your mind? Most child abuse cases in the Church were fabricated by the liberal media to discredit it.
What anishit is this? fuggin japs
The church has stood for two millennia and is just now starting to fall apart because they're buying into the globalist rag, and even in their decline, they're still one of the most powerful organizations on the planet. For its age, corruption is relatively low, as well.
Like I said, replace the religious agenda with a fascist one and you have a strong, lasting system of government.
If you want to see the fate of any long-term fascist government, look at literally any other autocratic government in the history of forever - they all turn corrupt eventually.
Biggest count against >muh Reagan
Kekkai Sensen. Something about Monsters inhabiting New York.
Nothing is going to change. Trump is just saying "I'd abolish it" because he CAN take that position knowing it will NEVER come to fruition. He can be on the same side of the issue as the protestors knowing it's impossible to ever happen.
It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC and there is no way in hell that 3/4 of the states are going to sign on to that. 38 of 50 States would have to vote to overturn it. Highly unlikely as AT LEAST 38 of them benefit greatly from the EC.
OP is a faggot, and so are the shills in this thread