This election makes me doubt the electoral college

[FreakensteinAG]

It's in the other thread. According to them, states with low populations don't matter because they won't make a difference in the total votes, so candidates will only focus on big states and ignore the rest like trash, leaving precious votes behind. Makes sense for politicians to do such a thing, right? hurr durr hurr hurr

This is pants-on-head ridiculous. To these people, look at how the electoral votes are distributed. The most populated states have the most electoral votes. Under the electoral system, winner takes all. Under the popular vote system, having 50.1% of the vote in one state does not yield empty points to a candidate while the second gets jack squat. We can actually wait until the entire country finishes counting before determining a winner, not "oh, X has 271, he/she wins!" In effect, abolishing the electoral system will actually give more power to the smaller states.

 

[Оdin]

This is pants-on-head ridiculous. To these people, look at how the electoral votes are distributed. The most populated states have the most electoral votes. Under the electoral system, winner takes all. Under the popular vote system, having 50.1% of the vote in one state does not yield empty points to a candidate while the second gets jack squat. We can actually wait until the entire country finishes counting before determining a winner, not "oh, X has 271, he/she wins!" In effect, abolishing the electoral system will actually give more power to the smaller states.

But they fail to understand something so ****ing simple. It's because of people like them the world is ****ed.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

How would it neglect states only a few states shouldn't dictate the opinion of the entire country

why go for:


Delaware = 925,749
South Dakota= 844,877
Alaska = 735,132
North Dakota= 723,393
Vermont = 626,630
Wyoming = 582,658
Total = 4,43,8435

When you can focus all of your attention on New York City alone (not even the whole state) and get over 8 million. Far cheaper and yields greater returns. Electoral college might not work but a populus vote craps on states like the ones mentioned.


EDIT: apparently what I'm trying to say isn't clear enough for some people.


Even convincing half of new york city (not state just city) to vote for you yields roughly the same amount of vote as convincing all of Rhode island, Delaware, South Dakota,Alaska,North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont to vote for you. And that's just half of the city.

 

[Оdin]

why go for:


Delaware = 925,749
South Dakota= 844,877
Alaska = 735,132
North Dakota= 723,393
Vermont = 626,630
Wyoming = 582,658
Total = 4,43,8435

When you can focus all of your attention on New York City alone (not even the whole state) and get over 8 million. Far cheaper and yields greater returns. Electoral college might not work but a populus vote craps on states like the ones mentioned.

Wait wait wait... are you insinuating the popular vote would be a winner-takes-all system like the electoral votes? Holy shit.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

Wait wait wait... are you insinuating the popular vote would be a winner-takes-all system like the electoral votes? Holy shit.

jesus ****.Please stop being dense.

 

[Оdin]

jesus ****.Please stop being dense.

You just said why go for the aforementioned states when you can go for 8 million souls from NYC, which is almost the exact population of the city. NYC is not 100% Democratic or Republican. Are you even ****ing aware of how you argue? No wonder you kept talking about the same shit on the other thread. How did I not see it.

Anybody with sense would go for the city and the states you mentioned. Goddamn you're not cut out to be a politician.

 

[Sagebee]

why go for:


Delaware = 925,749
South Dakota= 844,877
Alaska = 735,132
North Dakota= 723,393
Vermont = 626,630
Wyoming = 582,658
Total = 4,43,8435

When you can focus all of your attention on New York City alone (not even the whole state) and get over 8 million. Far cheaper and yields greater returns. Electoral college might not work but a populus vote craps on states like the ones mentioned.


EDIT: apparently what I'm trying to say isn't clear enough for some people.


Even convincing half of new york city (not state just city) to vote for you yields roughly the same amount of vote as convincing all of Rhode island, Delaware, South Dakota,Alaska,North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont to vote for you. And that's just half of the city.

Either way someone isn't going to get what what they want it's better people get what they want where all people's votes actually count also besides that the Electoral College system can easily be abused by the establishment

 

[BenjerminGaye]

You just said why go for the aforementioned states when you can go for 8 million souls from NYC, which is almost the exact population of the city. NYC is not 100% Democratic or Republican. Are you even ****ing aware of how you argue? No wonder you kept talking about the same shit on the other thread. How did I not see it.

Anybody with sense would go for the city and the states you mentioned. Goddamn you're not cut out to be a politician.

Facepalm.jpg

Even convincing half of new york city (not state just city) to vote for you yields roughly the same amount of vote as convincing all of Rhode island, Delaware, South Dakota,Alaska,North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont to vote for you. And that's just half of 1 city in 1 state.

bold applies to all states mentioned(all states in general actually). -_- so it goes both ways in my example.

Either way someone isn't going to get what what they want it's better people get what they want where all people's votes actually count also besides that the Electoral College system can easily be abused by the establishment

people won't get what they want if its based of populus only the majority, so the states i mentioned would never be heard since their population is so low.

 

[Оdin]

Facepalm.jpg

Even convincing half of new york city (not state just city) to vote for you yields roughly the same amount of vote as convincing all of Rhode island, Delaware, South Dakota,Alaska,North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont to vote for you. And that's just half of the city.

bold applies to all states. -_- so it goes both ways in my example.

Who gives a flying **** how much more NYC yields over those states? The point you are failing so hard to understand is that candidates will work even harder to get all the votes they can get their hands on if the election was based on the popular vote. Get it through your ****ing head. The popular vote is fair because candidates get the votes people gave them, whereas electoral votes are only given to the winner of a state. Can nobody be this ****ing stupid.

 

[Sagebee]

Facepalm.jpg

Even convincing half of new york city (not state just city) to vote for you yields roughly the same amount of vote as convincing all of Rhode island, Delaware, South Dakota,Alaska,North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont to vote for you. And that's just half of 1 city in 1 state.

bold applies to all states mentioned(all states in general actually). -_- so it goes both ways in my example.




people won't get what they want if its based of populus only the majority, so the states i mentioned would never be heard since their population is so low.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but it sounds to me your proving my point why we should go by the popular vote.

Is the arguement your trying to make its better to go with majority state opinion than majority individual opinion? If so then to an extent I can respect and understand why you would go with the electorate vote. My main concern with it is it not actually representing the states opinion how can we check if this is truly the states opinion and legally the electorate have no obligation to go by the states vote.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

Who gives a flying **** how much more NYC yields over those states?

The fact that a politician would gain so much from a ****ING CITY let alone a state shows that its yields are far greater than entire states combined. ENTIRE STATES.

The point you are failing so hard to understand is that candidates will work even harder to get all the votes they can get their hands on if the election was based on the popular vote.Get it through your ****ing head.

You're assuming that. You think it's fact but it's not. When certain cities dwarf entire states then only going for the places where population is the densest means a QUANTIFIABLE greater chance of victory. Like shit how hard is that for you to understand. Its basic ****ing math. Whereas the politician wasting his/her time in the boonies and sticks gets meager amounts of votes for their troubles ASSUMING everyone there can vote and ASSUMING everyone there votes for you which you just threw in my face as being an impossibility. -_-

The popular vote is fair because candidates get the votes people gave them, whereas electoral votes are only given to the winner of a state. Can nobody be this ****ing stupid.

and where are you gonna get the highest number of votes? in wyoming? No? -_-

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but it sounds to me your proving my point why we should go by the popular vote.

Is the arguement your trying to make its better to go with majority state opinion than majority individual opinion? If so then to an extent I can respect and understand why you would go with the electorate vote. My main concern with it is it not actually representing the states opinion how can we check if this is truly the states opinion and legally the electorate have no obligation to go by the states vote.

No, what is it with you guys? why is it that you see that as the only 2 options? Why not a vote based on city where each city/county is represented equally? So places that have more people wouldn't have a bigger voice and pull over places that aren't so lucky? Thus forcing people on the county/city level to look at what is important to them? Instead of it just being every man for themselves?

 

[NarutoKage2]

the popular votes shows on liberal mainstream media are rigged

check here

You must be registered for see links

Rt (russian tv) and even UK news media show the same results I. E hillary won the popular vote so no.

Ot: W.e the popular vote is, Hillary lost because she failed to hold onto wisconsin, pennsylvania places that should have voted democratic. She also failed to win a single swing state.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

the popular votes shows on liberal mainstream media are rigged

check here

You must be registered for see links

are you in india or are you using a proxy server.

 

[Оdin]

The fact that a politician would gain so much from a ****ING CITY let alone a state shows that its yields are far greater than entire states combined. ENTIRE STATES.

You're assuming that. You think it's fact but it's not. When certain cities dwarf entire states then only going for the places where population is the densest means a QUANTIFIABLE greater chance of victory. Like shit how hard is that for you to understand. Its basic ****ing math. Whereas the politician wasting his/her time in the boonies and sticks gets meager amounts of votes for their troubles ASSUMING everyone there can vote and ASSUMING everyone there votes for you which you just threw in my face as being an impossibility. -_-

and where are you gonna get the highest number of votes? in wyoming? No? -_-





No, what is it with you guys? why is it that you see that as the only 2 options? Why not a vote based on city where each city/county is represented equally? So places that have more people wouldn't have a bigger voice and pull over places that aren't so lucky? Thus forcing people on the county/city level to look at what is important to them? Instead of it just being every man for themselves?

Same ridiculous arguments over and over again. Your idea is as bad, if not worse, than the Electoral College. You need to get your cranium checked, you're thinking like an alien, it just ain't realistic.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

Same ridiculous arguments over and over again. Your idea is as bad, if not worse, than the Electoral College. You need to get your cranium checked, you're thinking like an alien, it just ain't realistic.

Its ridiculous that population density plays a role in who gets the most votes. Wow. Such a counter.

But the idea of voting elects based on the how each city feels(and given that its a city the scale is small enough for actual discussion) is for some reason a bad idea. Lol. Just admit your fckery.

 

[Sagebee]

The fact that a politician would gain so much from a ****ING CITY let alone a state shows that its yields are far greater than entire states combined. ENTIRE STATES.

You're assuming that. You think it's fact but it's not. When certain cities dwarf entire states then only going for the places where population is the densest means a QUANTIFIABLE greater chance of victory. Like shit how hard is that for you to understand. Its basic ****ing math. Whereas the politician wasting his/her time in the boonies and sticks gets meager amounts of votes for their troubles ASSUMING everyone there can vote and ASSUMING everyone there votes for you which you just threw in my face as being an impossibility. -_-

and where are you gonna get the highest number of votes? in wyoming? No? -_-





No, what is it with you guys? why is it that you see that as the only 2 options? Why not a vote based on city where each city/county is represented equally? So places that have more people wouldn't have a bigger voice and pull over places that aren't so lucky? Thus forcing people on the county/city level to look at what is important to them? Instead of it just being every man for themselves?

I respect the sentiment and a collectivist voting system does sound appealing to me I just find the implementation questionable. I think if we made let's say each city worth an equal amount of votes I could see it unfairly skew elections, I can see it being easily abused, and install even greater group think in communities than it already is.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

Matter of fact i don't even have to hypothesize, raw numbers speak for me.

Hillary clinton got over 4 million votes from NY alone, and another 4mil from texas and 5.5 million from california. But please tell me how that's equal to 600 thousand votes of 5 states in the Midwest.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

I respect the sentiment and a collectivist voting system does sound appealing to me I just find the implementation questionable. I think if we made let's say each city worth an equal amount of votes I could see it unfairly skew elections, I can see it being easily abused, and install even greater groupthink in communities than it already is.

i disagree, Bringing it down to city level eliminates the need for arbitrary electoral numbers and fosters greater discussion. Infact if we made election day a holiday so workers can actually take the time out and go to their city leaders they can actually vote based off of policy since they know how direct it will affect them, their co workers and their neighbors, since the lowest elected position IS a city councilman... or something to that effect.

 

[Sagebee]

i disagree, Bringing it down to city level eliminates the need for arbitrary electoral numbers and fosters greater discussion. Infact if we made election day a holiday so workers can actually take the time out and go to their city leaders they can actually vote based off of policy since they know how direct it will affect them, their co workers and their neighbors, since the lowest elected position IS a city councilman... or something to that effect.

Well I'm not against giving it a try and making election more ground level and communal does sound nice if it can be implemented correctly just the system in general is too deeply corrupt as it currently stands

 

[YowYan]

Left and right in sync, we march into hell guided by an illusive eye.