Don't mean to beat a dead horse with the election controversy going around and the anti electoral college meme but I'm...

That's how it should be though

>implying that city dwellers don't pay some of the highest txes in the country + cost of living compared to rural

By congregational district makes the vote vulnerable to gerrymandering. The only reasonable way to do it is to allocate votes based on share of the vote, and round in the winner's favor. And this is actually really stupid for a state to do at a state level, because it makes them less relevant in the electoral college.

>problematic

Back to Tumblr please
Getting tired of your kind shitting up Veeky Forums

muh corn subsidies tho

how will i keep muh corn subsidies

I'm not saying by district. that wouldn't work anyways since the number of delegates is the number of senate seats + house seats. i mean if you get 75% of the vote you get 75% of the delagates, of course with some rounding

I was actally loosely quoting the article with that phrase but ok faggot. Nice use of buzz words to call out my supposed use of buzzwords.

You said like Maine and Nebraska
>Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state.

also adding it doesn't make them less relevant, in fact makes them more likely to be visited by a candidate and have them try to court voters if the state isn't a swing state. it's bad for the party that normally gets all those delegates for free but good for the voter and for the state itself

oh my bad.

don't forget about Texas. Baically it would be decided bu NY, cali, Texas, PA, Florida.

I guess it was originally supposed to balance out total population support with states representation.

It probably doesn't make much sense as it doesn't effectively counterbalance the population weight of the coasts vs the middle states and viceversa, but simply empowers a couple of swing states, namely Florida and Ohio as king makers.

Might as well not have elections in the rest of the country for all it'd matter.

You're not going to fight very hard for a single swing vote when you could be fighting in Florida for 29. It makes them less relevant because you're fighting for and defending much smaller stakes.

The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that less populated states get some voice in the federal government. It was always an unhappy compromise, but it did its job well enough that there was never any reason to replace it. As others have said, if the election was determined solely by popular vote, politicians would campaign in high population density areas and completely ignore the rest of the country.

you certainly will be paying more attention to the state than if it was just winner-take-all and was securely in your hands already

>The purpose of the electoral college
No it isn't. The electoral college had several purposes which is no longer serves. The less populated states thing is only one minor one.

>As others have said, if the election was determined solely by popular vote, politicians would campaign in high population density areas and completely ignore the rest of the country.
They already do, you don't seriously think they drive out to farms in rural bumfuck nowhere do you? They go to urban high density areas in swing states. They don't even visit the extreme rural bumfuck states that have no change of flipping.

You're also making it less likely that you play a decisive role in the election, and a less attractive target to flip. There's a reason states use winner take all, it was never mandated by the electoral college. Winner takes all was an attempt to maximize the state's leverage in national elections. At best you'd see a few minor skirmishes over weak attempts to flip and defend.

>They already do, you don't seriously think they drive out to farms in rural bumfuck nowhere do you?

Yes, they do and I have pictures of Obama to prove it.

I'm talking about from the perspective of states that won't be flipped. of course this lowers the leverage of florida. there is no reason for a candidate to try to get votes in texas or california.

I mean regularly. With popular vote, you'd still see some outreach to rural people. The current electoral college system only really brings attention to swing states.

user, the constitution had something to do with slavery as well, should we abolish that?
Additionally, certain policies held by certain parties don't accurately reflect all of the states. If it was popular vote and only those 4 or 5 states mattered, then politicians would change their policies to only reflect those states

>states mattering in a popular vote

We abolished slavery though.

>I mean regularly. With popular vote, you'd still see some outreach to rural people. The current electoral college system only really brings attention to swing states.

I honestly think that the truly rural areas are always going to be irrelevant politically. There just aren't enough people in those places, and the people that do live in those places don't really care about politics very much (although the internet is rapidly changing that last part).

see the second part of my post here
Only 4-5 states out 50 deciding an entire election is pretty bogus I'll, admit . But can it be argued that since most people of your country decide to live in such states over others, that at the end of the day it's fair to say that these 4 or 5 states are representhing the opinion of most of your citizens?
There is also the fact that a few swing states pretty much decide the campaign under this current system anyway and are subject to having the most focus as a result so we're back to square one. Only now, we also have the added benefit that the winner take all notion of decisive states ends and every citizen's vote in each will actually matter.

Giving hicks internet was a mistake

It's constitutional for electors to completely disregard the vote in your state

True, I just though of that. Every state has different challenges and thus has peoplenty with different concerns. It would be unfair for them to basically be irrelevant.

Many states have laws against that now.

I feel like ironically, the EC basically exist to protect the little guy just like most liberal policies. It's actually funny that liberals,are suddenly angry about its existence lol.

>little guy

So what were those purposes? It would be nice of you to share that since that was literally thw point of half of the OP...

>a king is the smallest minority because theres only one in the entire country
>It's actually funny that liberals,are suddenly angry about his existence lol.

Liberals have been angry about its existence since forever. They even tried to repeal it in the 1970s but that got filibustered by literally who state representatives who didn't want to see their backwaters resigned to the periphery where they belong.

they're just angry about it because it went against them in this election. if the tables were flipped trump supporters would be crying foul too and here would be those same liberals defending the electoral college

you know,what I mean dumb fucks.Research has,shown that poor uneducated whites make up alot of the voting base for decisive red states. Now if you realize the reasons why they are poor may also be related to the unique challenges they face in their mostly rural state, you start to see how alienating their opinions could be seen as "problematic".
And before you start screening bias, no I'm not a repub or conservative.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Original_plan

Furthermore, note the footnote 26, as it is easy to miss
>Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis.[26]
This did not happen early on
>Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton so strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted."

He's a big guy.

Oh yeah I know that for sure. You don't have to tell me. lol They would even add the election was rigged by jews,and dems etc. etc.I'm just pointing out how hypocritical both major parties are. It's just more fun to point out hypocrisy in democrats and most of the liberals who support them because they swear their shit don't stink when it comes to open-mindedness and intellectualism.

Isn't your skin a little thin for Veeky Forums?

It's pretty much a given that any time the winner of the popular vote and the electoral college, the one that won the popular vote is going to be upset, including Mr. President Elect.

what about the superdelegates that shafted Bernie?

Can you guys just STFU about this? BTW Trump might win pop vote when soldier votes all get counted. I just mean if you keep complaining its just emboldening protesters who have already turned Portland, OR into a small war zone and its beginning to turn into a giant movement.

This is why the electoral college exists. The states that are red or blue are the states with

The majority of people agree with abolishing the electoral college, that includes a majority of republicans, at least before the results of this election. Both Clinton and Trump were on the record for saying they disagreed with electoral college before the election.

>It's just more fun to point out hypocrisy in democrats and most of the liberals who support them because they swear their shit don't stink when it comes to open-mindedness and intellectualism.
I'm actually pretty sure it's just because you're from /pol/.

Superdelegates aren't part of the electoral college. Rather, they are a function of the DNC.

People have more rights than lands, yes.

The question is if you abolish the electoral college, what do you replace it with?

So, it was basically so the popular vote would only elect certain representitives they felt would vote their way, even if the electoral college would be doing most of the deliberating and decision making themselves?
Can't district by district also mean that an individual EC vote from each district could be given to either candidate if a certain area got mostly say democratic votes. I think that is at least a bit better than the dumb winner-take-all electoral vote system.

Simple plurality.

Electoral college plus instant runoff seems like it would work pretty well.

>So, it was basically so the popular vote would only elect certain representitives they felt would vote their way, even if the electoral college would be doing most of the deliberating and decision making themselves?
No, they voted for an elector that would vote in their interests. It's tricky because of the footnote, as some state governments just selected the electors themselves. But under the system where citizens voted for electors, the candidate would be nominated by the party, not selected by citizens in a primary, and they probably would not campaign normal citizens. They would make their case to electors about why they served their constituent's best interests.

>Can't district by district
Again, that's not how it actually worked, which is why I said note the footnote. It's not the way everyone thought it should work either, because some went against it. It's the way Hamilton thought it should work.

>also mean that an individual EC vote from each district could be given to either candidate if a certain area got mostly say democratic votes.
You're missing the fundamental structure differences and focusing on only one part.

>I think that is at least a bit better than the dumb winner-take-all electoral vote system.
Read
>Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.
The reason it is done is because of states rights and states wanting to have more influence.

The electoral college basically does not do what it was designed to do except give a little more say to small states.

lol Nice try faggot but /pol/ is full of insufferable idiots who can't into science or logic. I know you like to pretend that anyone who criticizes liberals is a cuckservative but that that is simply not the case, there are some things I just could never agree with conservatives, especially republicens, on. Please just stop. Anyway let's not get into modern politics as that was not the point of this thread.

That's the most contentious issue, because electoral college does still serve the one function of giving small states a bigger say. Also battleground states benefit from it because it gives them more importance.

The reason why plurality is semi-viable is because you don't need a constitutional amendment. And once it's plurality, then people will demand a better plurality, like instant run-off through an amendment, because instant run-off is pretty much better in every way.

Whatever you say, although it's pretty obvious to anyone that isn't completely self oblivious. If you weren't saying it based on partisanship, you should have found Trump's 2012 meltdown hilarious.

>but simply empowers a couple of swing states, namely Florida and Ohio as king makers.
I wouldn't place all the blame on the EC for that. If people weren't such tools that largely follow a party without question there would be a lot more swing states instead of "no real reason to campaign intensively here, we got this".

p.s. how would I be a /pol/ shill when I openly just condemned the idea of "blame the Jews" and the fact that Trump and his crew would have said the election was rigged(which he stated clearly the day before thw election). You're making yourself look real smart right now user.

>how would i be /pol/ if i wasnt false flagging
Look, the only people you convince with that is idiots in Youtube comments and other equally self oblivious /pol/ posters.

Would splitting the votes like NE does make the electoral college obsolete?

It would just make it prone to gerrymandering. At least you can't just arbitrarily change state borders every 10 years. It's also usually bad for the individual state to split up their votes, which is why they're winner-takes-all in the first place. EC did not start off as winner-takes-all.

Splitting votes is only a decent idea if it is proportional to vote share with rounding to the winner, or 2 of the votes goes to the state winner and the rest of the votes are based on vote share.

I did and I found alot of the celebrations of Trump supporters hilarious too, mainly because he is probably at least almost as corrupt as Hillary but they swear otherwise. Lets not get into that and other things though as this is a history board. I also found all the disrespect towards Obama through out most of his presidency from conservatives unecessary and chilish. Liberals disrespecting Trump's now actually seems expected if not understandable. Of course, it still makes them hypocrites as the so called more "intellectual and reasonable" group. Not that we need further proof of that.

>Of course, it still makes them hypocrites as the so called more "intellectual and reasonable" group.
You must be 12 and from /pol/, because you seem to be viewing everything through the lens of /pol/ through this election cycle. Before Trump, conservatives tried to claim they were the reasonable ones with just normal family values (the degeneracy argument) and variations of this quote
>anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head
Have been floating around for 100 years or so, and repeatedly used. It's a common trope that liberals are young, naive and idealistic while conservatives are wiser and more prudent.

This probably makes no sense to you if you've only been voting age for this past election cycle, because Trump has broken many conservative norms, and if you're /pol/ you think everything is SJWs, which seems to be reflected in your opinion about muh libruhls.

Hold up, OP here I soecifically outlined that the main point of my thread was historically focused.I am trying my hardest to steer most of the thread's discussion from modern day politics, particularly this weeks election, as much as possible.

Are you even reading my posts? I just said Trump's supporters are childish and naive for thinking he will do every thing he said. Repubs and conservatives were also childish for talking shit about the Obama all 8 years. The thing is we'be already been told t expect that from them no? That's my point. I think the only one here being biased here is you lol mr. lefty /pol/. I could call you a tumblrite but I feel that would be too harsh. Just admit that the movement you may support is just as dumbfuck retarded and extreme already ok? Whether or not you like it, triggered SJW in need of safe spaces and anti free speech are are large part of liberals now. The same way no matter how many libertarians/fiscal consrvatives there are, conservacucks will mostly be made of pretentious christians forcing the bible and their views on everyone, and never respecting separation of church and state, even when it actually makes no sense fiscally.

You're really not helping your point in trying to prove you aren't /pol/.

Trump said both the primary election system and the general election were rigged. But he won both. Does that prove his point? Or refute it?

because the US is a republic not a democracy.

taking away the EC takes away the last bit of power that states actually have on a national scale.

>what is the senate

And you're really not helping your point of nit being a stereotypical liberal sjw by ignoring the fact that many sjw are a large part of the liberal force the days. Simply look at fb and YouTube comments, if you will pretend to keep up your denial by hiding behind a b.s. excuse that "you're a /pol/tard, you're just not aware of it lel."
But think as you wish, we're getting off track from OP and Veeky Forums appropriate posting however.

>because the US is a republic not a democracy.
Republic is a form of democracy (representative democracy) unless you're going to be an autistic Athenian and demand we pick the president with super lotto.

>taking away the EC takes away the last bit of power that states actually have on a national scale.
That has nothing to with being a Republic, you don't need sub-states to have a republic, you're thinking for Federalism, and what you say is also a straight out lie. We have a bicameral legislative branch, we still have the senate, every state still gets 2 votes in the senate.

>The big cities get to have the government bent to their whims
I feel that things like rural overrepresentation may create more problems then having a simple popular vote. With the popular vote you can at least say a majority of people wanted this. The rural/small state bias can be easily gamed by politicians (Japan is a spectacular example of this though it is by no means limited to Japan. One of the reasons the LDP held power so long is because they pandered to smaller places who had more power than larger cities even after their population declined).

>And you're really not helping your point of nit being a stereotypical liberal sjw by ignoring the fact that many sjw are a large part of the liberal force the days.
I never said they weren't. All I said is it was obvious you were from /pol/ because muh libruhls instead of discussing the actual topic at hand which I provided several posts about the EC.

You may feel that way, but those other people feel their vote should be worth more than yours. What are you going to do about it? Move to rural hickistan?

>Simply look at fb and YouTube comments
They seem to be full of /pol/ filth like you.

18th century transportation and communications infrastructure.

though i'm also sure there was some anti mob rule intent as well.

lol "/pol/ filth." This is actually funny now.
Wanna know how I know youre a sjw liberal and both sides are idiotic? Because I've actually been accused of being a feminist on this site. Try just an independent thinker. I'm sure you're pretty triggered for no reason now. I guess I should leave you alone.

Anti mob? Define your terms and cite them bro.

>you don't seriously think they drive out to farms in rural bumfuck nowhere do you?
literally how trump won the election

>being called a feminist as an insult
Clearly because you were on /pol/. It's not like you have to agree with 100% of the party line and simultaneously be an ancap libertarian minarchist isolationalist protectionalist fascist to be from /pol/. It's amazing how completely self oblivious you are. You seriously need thicker skin to post on Veeky Forums if you take feminist as an insult.

> electoralcollegeforants.jpg

I have provided plenty of replies to other posters besides you user. This is an anonymous site duh. Get over yourself. The liberal quip was a side on top of the main point of voters with unique challenges and you know that. If you're so hurt by such a comment while being aware that many liberals these days are sjw, I'm not sure which of us is actually shilling here.
lol who the said I was offended? I don't even care. I'm more annoyed by shitty replies. I just find it conflicting that I could be called a feminist cunt on one hand then accused of being a closed bigoted /pol/tard all on the same board. It's telling of how much of the two sides are similar in extremism and stupidity.

lol yeah sorry about that. I'm was on my phone earlier.

You need to up your false flagging game. Being called /pol/ isn't even a serious insult on Veeky Forums and it's been happening since day 1.

>The states that are red or blue are the states with

Lol which is it? I'm getting confused as to whether I'm supposed to feel "insulted" for being called a /pol/tard or Feminist cunt. You're not making sense, as if being called closed minded sheep inany form shouldn't be an insult lol. Of course the other thing is that Veeky Forums is just full of idiots in general.
If we're staying on topic: what do you think about the EC over all? Are you for or against? You simply mentioned how the one function of the EC is protecting smaller states. You never mentioned whether or not that one function is a good enough reason to keep it for you.

Would the United Kingdom benefit from an electoral college?

Doesn't Scotland determine everything?

Can you fuck off? I want a war.

All that independent thought in Wyoming and Nebraska.

But for those other states, it's less the fault of the EC, and more the fault that the majority of folks in the safe states always tend to vote in one direction.

If the safe states didn't exist, then the vote would be affected the other direction.

So, in that respect, at least, it's working as it should. It'd make no difference if the vote was popular by state or EC, safe states would still be safe states.

I'd still prefer a popular vote (though Lincoln, for instance, wouldn't have been elected - nor Trump nor Bush), but what you describe isn't the fault of the EC system.

Really. We should just scrap the whole system and use proportional representation like Germany or Israel and have a Prime Minister.

But I suppose that would be un-American.

But hey... Another 200 years of two shitty political parties trading places every year seems to work so far.

And its only one more political party than a dictatorship gets.

You're not supposed to feel insulted much by either, yet here you are, feeling victimized for being accused of being a feminist and being called /pol/. And also repeatedly doing a shit job false flagging. It's "bants"

>I'd still prefer a popular vote (though Lincoln, for instance, wouldn't have been elected
wat

kek.