What would happen in the electoral college who swore to vote for a specific candidate all voted for another or at least...

The Electoral College isn’t about the number of votes X gets vs. Y, it’s about equally representing ALL the American people.

Americans from Texas are different culture then people from Maine, who are different from those in California, who are different from Michiganders, etc.

And how does the EC do that? It doesn't. Plurality equally represents all people. It represents an urbanite just as much as an exurbanite.

So if a farmer moves to a city, his vote counts less?

>Most states have laws against that.
Those are punishment laws mostly, not prevention. The electors can still fuck off towards Clinton if they want, they'll just get fined.

Pretty much.

19 states don't and if someone got the 19 to work with them it definitely could shift the balance.

>Plurality equally represents all people.

Except it doesn't, it represents the highest population cities on the east and west coasts.

As you can see from the map, to win the EC a candidate would have get at least all the red underlined largest EC vote states (plus either Alaska or DC) and that's not going to happen, as Texans are different then Californians.

What make cities politically uniform political entities?

Again, if a farmer moves to a city, why does his vote count less?

And if city person moves to a small town, why does his vote count more?

Shouldn't all votes count equally?

The EC means that prez only care about a hand full of battle ground states.
It is pathetic.

>What make cities politically uniform political entities?

Concentration of population leads to homogenization of culture.

>The EC means that prez only care about a hand full of battle ground states.

But the battle ground or swing states each have their own unique cultures; Michigan and Florida were both swing states this time around but the societies in each are very different from each other.

Another point.

People in the 1700's never moved 10 miles from where they were born.

People move all the time now and they have no loyalty or political loyalty from their birth place.

Apparently North Carolina is a popular spot for retiring northerners for example.

Also I'd argue that cities are more diverse in political spectrum.

I mean I'm a goddamn fascist and I live in a city. I grew up in the country side.

Why must view location as a bonus power to your voting power?

But again, I'm arguing that we scrap our electoral system and install a proportional parliament so we can have fascist control of seats.

>Wiscosin
>Michigan
>Pennsylvania
None of which considered a battle-ground state ("blue wall" kek), all ignored by Clinton, all flipped to Red.

>shouldn't all votes count equally?
Individual votes don't count in the federal system. You aren't represented in the federal system individually, you are represented by your state. Your individual vote doesn't matter in this particular case. That's why it is called the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America. An individual in Nevada has no say in the state of California and vice versa. So that's basically how that country was built and it can't change.

this isn't real is it? Obama did win the popular vote in both of his elections anyway

>post the pop map
>Talking shit about the normies who call it soda and not the absolute retards who call all pop "coke"

But the system is 200 years old.

It was written with slavery in mind.

Most modern European countries figured out better systems.

Do you want to be stuck with shitty two party system for the next 200 years because that is what we are going to have if we don't get rid of the Federal system?

>People in the 1700's never moved 10 miles from where they were born.
Explain the Mayflower.

To be fair, if Pilgrims came over to the US now, they wouldn't be allowed to vote.

It is 100% real. Trump was tweeting before all the votes were counted, but when Obama won by EC based on the states called.

politico.com/story/2012/11/trump-throws-fit-on-twitter-083450

To be fair they didn't have any representation, despite taxation, back then too.

Yes, fuck the Euros, they don't know shit from the end of a stick.

>It was written with slavery in mind.
Not sure about slavery (even if it was slavery is now outlawed so I'm not sure how that changes anything), but it was written with balance of power in mind.

>Most modern European countries figured out better systems.
The people that came up with these systems knew full well what kind of nonsense the alternatives lead to. We can see the nonsense the alternatives lead to in Germany and in Sweden.

>Do you want to be stuck with shitty two party system for the next 200 years because that is what we are going to have if we don't get rid of the Federal system?
The 2 party system can be bullshit if you are a middle-of-the-spectrum type of guy, but I like it a lot better than coalition governments. Besides it is founded on the only two real political parties.

I mean if you really like having only one more choice than a dictatorship, I don't know if I can argue with you.

I mean its not like the government almost defaulted on its debt a few times because the two party system broke down because of partisanship.

Really...

And to be fair, Germany and Sweden are retarded because they are retarded.

Israel has a proportional government and do you seem them welcoming Muslim immigrants?

Hell a third party actually that was only a few years old took power as leadership.

If you want to pick between two shitty candidates for the next 200 years, I guess I can't really change your mind on the matter than maybe things could be improved.

>The people that came up with these systems knew full well what kind of nonsense the alternatives lead to.
They couldn't have as America was leading the pack when it came to democracy and republicanism at the time. A good part of their writings talked about Rome because they lacked good contemporaries. Events in places like Rhode Island had more affect on their thinking about democracy.

They had England as well. This is a direct result of the fact that the revolution happenned because the high population England made laws and policies that only favored England while ignoring the concerns of the low population colonies (taxation without representation).

There are only 2 true political parties (at least by the logic of the founding fathers):

>"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.

Now our current 2 parties are pretty much the same thing by Jefferson's definition.
The thing is that our 2 party system allows for accountability and a 3rd party can actually still rise to power.

>modern US politicians being accountable

Wew lad! You gave me a good chuckle.

>This is a direct result of the fact that the revolution happenned because the high population England made laws and policies that only favored England while ignoring the concerns of the low population colonies (taxation without representation).
I don't see what population has to do with it. England's colonial policy placed England first at the expense of the colonies.

This is the idea behind it. And they are. More accountable than coalition gov't parties.

It placed England first because there was a large ocean between them and the colonies and England's (specially London's) population was larger. They did look to Rome for some of it but a lot of it was how England treated them and the Founding Fathers recognized the need to balance the power of the sheer numbers of city voters.

cont.
>This is the idea behind it. And they are. More accountable than coalition gov't parties.
Just because nobody holds them accountable doesn't mean that they can't be held accountable.

They treated the other colonies the same way if not worse though I now kinda understand how at that time in history they could see things that way.

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

Yes, in everyone have an aneurysm at the same time in the voting booth and we would elect a third party president.

But its basically mathematically impossible otherwise.

Pray tell... How are we going to hold the two parties accountable when we throw our votes away if we don't for one or the other?

If the republicans do something shitty, I can vote democrat, but if the democrats also do something shitty, who can I vote for who would actually get both of them out of power because both of them have done some pretty shitty things over the past 30 years?

Oh and don't get me started on congress. How do we get incumbents out of gerrymandered districts?

I mean if you really want to stick with a broken system just because men in Whigs 200 years ago came up with it before anyone else, then I'm not sure what to expect out you.

The abuse of power of Washington is egregious. I don't think Trump is going to change that either.

The only way to hold these people accountable is to make it viable for third parties to win votes.

And our current system has empirically shown that it does not. There has not been a third party candidate to win even electoral votes since 1968.

You cannot say with a straight face that the system can hold two party candidates accountable because it hasn't.

Its not going to. Again, it will be like this in 200 years if we don't do anything.

desu probably won't happen until we have a constitutional crisis. Thing with the Civil War is the Union was trying to say they were legitimate.

Can you post more of these maps please? They are very interesting.

>You cannot say with a straight face that the system can hold two party candidates accountable because it hasn't.
Once again, just because it HASN'T does not mean it CAN'T hold the parties responsible.

>broken system
It is not a perfect system but it is a lot better than all the other bullshit out there

>The only way to hold these people accountable is to make it viable for third parties to win votes.
>we throw our votes away if we don't for one or the other?
You don't throw your vote away by voting 3rd party; you're voting against the other candidates. You're voting against the apathy of the American voter. Not many voters care about politics and voting outside of the POTUS elections. If they vote for anything else, the voter will usually vote for the incumbent so long as they haven't fucked up the voters life in some direct way. They have just as much a chance at gaining votes as the other parties do. Nobody (at least not in enough numbers to matter) wants to vote for these candidates. The fact of the matter is most American voters are perfectly content with the current 2-party system.

>200 years
The age of a system has nothing to do with whether or not it is broken.