Was US Voting System extremely flawed since the beginning?

>modern democracy
It is still an oligarchy

It works exactly as intended

Electoral college brought abominations like Bush or Trump to White House

>the electoral college!

I would sooner blame Citizens United and unrestricted campaign spending that default favors the wealthiest, user.

No, it is just extremely anachronistic and because the US seems unable to modernize its constitution and institutions on a non partisan way they are stuck with it. And hence you end up with a bi party system that only leaves yes or no choices instead of nuanced options and a presidential election that looks like a joke to most modern democracies.
Could be worse.

Could you elaborate user. I'm not that familiar with the intricacies of the USA voting system.

>tfw electoral college was devised as a way to give Congress power over the presidential election

basically all electoral college votes would be decided by congress if the votes tied, which they assumed would happen often

hell it wasn't even that at the beginning

beginning there wasn't even much of a central gov't and states could just do whatever they wanted which was bad because most decisions needed a unanimous vote from all of them. Not the most stable gov't

>when your livelihood is decided by a farmer who inherited his daddy's land

best system ever

it was literally the exact opposite. With no one achieving majority of votes, electors were expected to compromise and make back room deals, that's why the institution of elector exists in the first place. All in line with founding father's wish to keep actual decision making as far from common Joe as possible.

yea, it being decided by a boy who inherited his daddy's business is so much better.

Except for the landowning part.

>allowing people with no knowleds of state or governmental affairs to think their opinion is relevant and valid simply because they have one

Since literally day 1

Interestingly, this is how many Chinese view their lack of democratic rights. Willing to forgo what is seen as mostly a sham of a "voting right" in order to let the competent govern. Perhaps you are a filthy fucking commie and should fuck right off.

If you are a /pol/fags it was pretty good until the 24th amendment.

Yep

Yes, the Electoral College needs to be reformed right now It should be one state = one vote. Why the fuck should a shitty place like California get so many points in the Electoral College? Just because the have more people? That’s just downright dumb. You should have to win a simple majority of the states and you win period, why make it so complicated?

This

If UN was ruled by population, it would be just extention of China and India

No, we fucked it up by letting any old retard vote.

That too, we have a lot of problems here.

>Rhode Island and California are equally important.

There's no such thing as a perfect system, but this isn't the answer, user.

parts to a whole need big and small gears

the minority does not have the right to decide for the majority

If Meme Island was annexed by Connecticut nothing would change

No it doesn't.

And state is an arbitrary division. What if California wanted to split itself into 500 tiny states to flood the electoral college?

I'm just saying that everyone plays their part in the current state. Which is why Cali was made into a small gear.

Cease the argument by analogy, it's not making any sense. Tell us why you think the population of Rhode Island and the population of California should have equal representation.

How fucking hard can it be

One person, one vote
If you don't pay taxes you have no right to vote.
Criminals and sons of criminals have no right to vote.
There, done.

I don't. But Rhode Island and California should be protected from the tyranny of the majority as said by the constitution. Which protects against that very thing. Hence, smaller groups of people are given ways to speak in our government lest they be drowned out by the 'thirst' of the citys.

Should be 8 people get to vote. For a King

Rhode Island has more actual humans than California

It works both ways, if you give equal power to a minority, then they have power over the majority. Why should the cities not have power? Just because there's more people there?
I was hoping this wouldn't be a meme thread.

The majority in this case is the gaggle of states with less than a million people who have the same individual representation as states with 20 million+.

Tyranny of the minority is not any better than tyranny of the majority, in fact it's worse because you are disenfranchising more people.

As an example, Senators representing 180 million people were overruled by Senators representing 143 million people, and imposed the utterly incompetent Betsy Devos upon the rest of the country.

Its not tyranny. They don't have enough power to be tyrants. Its in only one body that they have that muh power in such a way. When hundreds exist. Though, they do require its permission much of the time. As for, disenfranchising, that would be a good thing. Because baby boomers are filth and make terrible decisions. Which is a theme, though not always, that the older generations clump together to try to drown out the younger generations, who live in 'hipper' less populated places.
>senators didn't go by popular vote
that doesn't matter. Republics are machines, not assemblys of the common folk.
They have less power. Just enough to be bale to resist tyranny. Which they do.

You keep asserting things, but fail repeatedly to back it up. Why should people who live with more people near them have less power than people who don't live next to many other people? What is it about living in a dense population center that means your vote should matter less?

They become demagouges. Which is when this event occurs, where the periphery of society, away from the cities, gets looked over by the cities as being unimportant. Not that their vote matters less, but so that they don't get murdered by some dumb law or leader. Eugenics programs, big fish and the rest come to mind. Hillary is the latest in that, who started inciting hatred towards an entire group of people who were bonded by nothing but their participation in the republican system.

What in the flying fuck are you talking about? Is English not your first language? Who the fucking is trying to euthanize rural citizens? Hillary's inciting hatred towards people who vote? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

Hillary's lose of the election directly coincided with the rise of violent movements who beileved that she had a divine right to rule. CAlled everyone else deplorables, and that the country would be better off without them. Before this, she was the Head Of State who should have been cracking down on them, instead, her and her president said that they were in the right of violently revolt. Eugenics targeted rural people more than urban because of the misunderstanding of the laws themselves which were passed in state assembly's which did not require much consent of the minority groups.

Oh, I see. You're either insane or a well-programmed bot that recognizes keywords and devises responses to them.

>democracy
Kill yourself.
I'd rather my country be governed by the natural aristocracy(Which, by the way, is often inheritable), instead of the other idiots in the lower classes.
Of course, though, I think anyone with their own land should be allowed to secede, and anyone without to vote with their feet.

And the majority has no right to decide for the minority.

>some bleeding heart fag introduces universal suffrage in his domain
>all your serfs/ peasants/ proles run away because lol freedom
gg

It worked pretty well when white lander owners were the only ones voting.

China hasn't been communist for a long time. They've been gradually moving towards fascism but nobody can admit it because of how embarrassing it is that a communist country had to go fascist to become successful.

That's no argument. I believe that the countries themselves would be better-run when run by the aristocracy. If they make it work over there, good for them. As long as they don't try to annexme, I'm fine. But when those peasants vote for shitty policies and that country runs out of money, I won't let them back in.
I believe that a good amount of people would have predicted that, or wouldn't have wanted to move for other reasons, so we could survive on our own, without our idiots.

Why would they want back in when your economy is a wreck due to lack of manpower?

The President is not elected by the people, they are elected by the Electoral College. When the people vote they're really casting a vote for the delegates that their state is allocated, who then cast their vote for the President later. The winner-take-all system means that a state's delegates are usually all voting for the same candidate, based on the popular vote of that state. Sometimes this will result in Presidents who didn't receive the popular vote, but who received enough of it in enough states that the Electoral College elects them anyway. George W. Bush and Donald Trump are the two most recent examples of this phenomenon.

If a lack of manpower is a problem, the employers would pay more.
Anyway, I imagine many countries would be very small in the first place, and many would be ideologically motivated. Ethno-states, religious-states, et cetera abound.

>Why the fuck should a shitty place like California get so many points in the Electoral College?
California has less votes in proportion to its population than most states. You're retarded. States don't vote. People vote. Why should one person's vote be worth more than another's?

Gerrymandering would still be an issue in the House of Representatives since elections are on a district-by-district basis instead of for the whole state.

>your workforce runs away
>surely their country will be the first one to collapse
Logical thinking isn't exactly your forte, is it?

>
>
>
"No."

to be honest, CA does need to be split up, the differences between Northern CA/Central CA and Southern CA/The Central Coast and Bay Area are night and day. The way Northern and Central CA are held hostage by the Oligarchs in the Bay and SoCal is unfair. Those poor bastards voices aren't even heard anymore, most us here in the Central Valley don't even bother voting anymore in general elections because we know our vote literally means nothing. Pic somewhat related

It wasn't flawed since the beginning, since at the beginning it was a reasonable compromise of various proposals that made sense and created a Republic that didn't piss off enough people (at-least for long enough) for a while. All of it's flaws is from antipathy to reform and the stubborness of past and current Elites being unwilling to change it to the changing society. House districts are retarded--they made sense when 95% of the population lived and worked in the same districts and political machines in control of State legislatures didn't have computers and data to know how to draw district lines to maximumize their electoral odds, but now they fail at their purpose. If the purpose of the House is to represent and reflect the people, then it's time to switch to a proportional system. Also, change the Senate seat adjustment based on population of a State, and have State legislators appoint them like they did before the 17th amendment.

The 1824 election was decided on by the House.

Do employers just magic money out of their ass?

Then consider, they are paying more for labor in your country, so why not just move to the bordering country with cheaper labor and reap the profits?

You just say that my whole workforce runs away. That's bullshit. What about those who like the King, personally? Those who believe in the philosophy of the politics of the state? Those who love the area, who grew up there? People who know people who won't leave, and don't want to move away from them?
You're the one who thinks that everyone would move just to live in a country where they can vote. And if people there can vote, they'd likely vote for policies that would need increased taxation. What about people who don't want to pay that money? And how many people do you really think would think that democracy is freedom? Would they not realize that the fact that the king is willing to let them leave means that they're already free?
You don't have an argument.

Maybe the king and other ruling members make some jobs. People who have good reason not to leave.
Also, while labor may be cheaper in the democracy, taxes would be higher.

Why would taxes be higher? they don't have a useless aristocracy to support.

POTUS is considerably cheaper than the queen of England.

Because they need money to pay for all the shit the idiot voters vote for.
Do you think that taxes are lower now than they were hundreds of years ago? Really?
Anyway, it's not even an issue. Maybe I, the King, and all the other aristocrats, as well as the peasants who have other reasons not to leave, are perfectly happy living in a state with the size and population of Liechtenstein.

How can anyone consider this true democracy and what on earth could be it's purpose other than "correcting" the result when the popular vote doesn't go the "right" way? Such a ridiculous system

t. Yurop

I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Queen's compensation but I believe profits from Royal holdings are funneled into the public budget, which then pays a portion of those profits back to the Queen.

you only said that because trump didn't win the popular vote.

that because they vote democrat and nothing else

Most people don't consider it democracy. The thing about the USA is that popular democracy was meant to happen at the State level and in Congress. The President was meant to be accountable to and a leader of the Union, rather than the populace. It would be more correct to think of the USA as 50 countries with similar ties as the EU members rather than a single country of 50 divisions.

but some idiots chimped out in 1861 because they lost an election.

Fpbp

The US democratized with an unusually large franchise pretty early and the electoral college was designed to prevent the excesses of ochlocracy. In practice, faithless electors face censure, political retaliation, and sometimes legal penalties in certain states. They've never swung elections.

And now we're supposed to be just one country.
I wish we had just let them secede.

hurr patriodism

That speaks more to the failure of preceding Presidents to address the slavery issue in any meaningful way.

>not restricting peasants movement
Also Cossack state lol

The same is true in Hong Kong also though, but for a different reason. Many of the people who live there, especially in the older generations, fled from the supposedly democratic communists and had little interest in implementing anything that the communists claimed to like.

>intended
which is what?

you forget that the electoral college isn't allotted based on population either, so that some states have electoral votes disportionate to their actual size, giving them outsized, and unfair, influence.

>muh sovereign states

Even if electoral votes were based on population there could still be situations where the popular candidate loses the election.

Yeah you're right it was perfect.

>Hence, smaller groups of people are given ways to speak in our government
entirely irrelevant to the presidency. this is a thread about the presidential electon, not congress. "smaller groups" can just as easily be made heard by reforming the electoral college so that electoral votes are apportioned by percentage of vote.

>They don't have enough power to be tyrants
in the hands of certain elements, minority rule is indeed tyrannical. they can prevent the majority from doing ANYTHING, even if it doesn't involve harming the minorities' position. In other words, it's a framework that is fundamentally against change or reform until conditions deteriorate to the point of no return or till they're long overdue. Now, you may be against reform and think the best government is one that does nothing-- minority rights being great at leading to this-- but DON'T call your system a democracy if you don't allow the will of the majority to prevail.

Riddle me something
Isn't the answer t the argument the majority of the thread has been about the HoR and Senate formed? One for population and one where all states are equal?
A side note, when people bitch about much popular vote, is the reply about how as is a Union of States the Stats vote matters, not the popular vote a stupid answer?

>Isn't the answer t the argument the majority of the thread has been about the HoR and Senate formed? One for population and one where all states are equal?
Yes.
>A side note, when people bitch about much popular vote, is the reply about how as is a Union of States the Stats vote matters, not the popular vote a stupid answer?
No.

This. We need to go back. You need to be somewhat competent and generationally invested in the nation, to have a say in its governance.

were not a democracy.
>address the EC
sure, the lines are drawn up subjectively and people are given the amount of EC votes based on if they are a state and then how many people they have. Meaning that each state gets a proportional voice that fluffs the minority groups so they don't get murdered like we're seeing in Europe and Southern CAlifornia right now where race hatred is causing ethnic cleansing against citizens.
>they prevent us from doing anything
thats not the case. You just don't look the direction the country is going, there have been more actions taken by minority-lead leaders than ones who aren't. Taft, Geroge Washington, and Trump come to mind. Whereas majority leaders just seek to consolidate their group's hegemoney over the country, leading to second class citizens or worse like in the confederacy.

>sure, the lines are drawn up subjectively
this isn't something to be ignored. admitting it's arbitrary, accepting this condition as good or tolerable is admitting that it's a flawed system that should be replaced with something better and more rational.

>Meaning that each state gets a proportional voice that fluffs the minority group
I don't know what you mean here

>so they don't get murdered like we're seeing in Europe and Southern CAlifornia
I'm not talking about ethnic minorities, I'm talking about political minorities

>where race hatred is causing ethnic cleansing against citizens.
this is your brain on /pol/. To actually say this unironically betrays a deep ignorance of world and domestic affairs

>there have been more actions taken by minority-lead leaders than ones who aren't.
>washington
>taft
>minority leaders
?
>trump
>taking action
action, certainly, but all actions that are extremely detrimental to the nation and, as i stated earlier, typical of a minority unrepresentative government that is imposing the will of a political minority diehard reactionaries and plutocrats on the rest of the nation with the aid of a embittered race baited white minority.

>Whereas majority leaders just seek to consolidate their group's hegemoney over the country
On the contrary, majorities oftentimes coddle "minorities" like the North did the US South of Northern Italy does Southern Italy. I think it's crude to say majorities are absolutist. They are only so when politics are divided along ethnic or sectarian lines.

>this is your brain on /pol/. To actually say this unironically betrays a deep ignorance of world and domestic affairs
Cholos are driving out other minorities from poor, urban neighborhoods in SoCal. The Balkans are a clusterfuck of tensions that run along racial and religious lines, and often those lines are identical. To deny that there is racially motivated minority violence exacerbated by the relative disenfranchisement of those minorities is disingenuous.

>Only people who actually pay taxes and contribute to the economy can vote
Absolutely perfect.

I would much rather have my livelihood decided by a homeless junkie or high school dropout welfare queen.

>Why should one person's vote be worth more than another's?
Because this country wasn't set up to be a direct democracy. It's a Republic with a federalist system. Your representation in the federal system comes via your state, and letting any one or two states have too much power in a large country with many distinct regions is a bad idea. It foments resentment and would lead to the destruction of the union. The federal government is not meant to be your direct representative. Take a fucking civics class you dumb commie.
It's not a direct democracy and it shouldn't be. The country is too large and different areas have competing interests that all need to be considered in federal policy.

>arbitrary
its not arbitrary, its just that theres no objective way to draw them.
>trump is bad
just go to /pol/
>majorities coddle
no they don't. They invade and burn towns to the ground for disobeying them.

Another ignorant half baked post that confuses and conflates events. Balkans is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion and is not a political issue anymore. These arent the 1990s anymore theres no threat of war at the moment. If this is your best example of “white genocide” (which os what you imply) you are indeed ignorant about current events. “Cholos” is also bullshit fantasy you read on /pol/ or yor facebook feed. I suspect like the other guy that you are indeed a bot because your slapping sentenced together

>just go to /pol/
/pol/ is seriously your example? This is your paragon of voters? One who unironically gets his news from sensationalist media, shills, trolls and redditors who post there?
>no they don't. They invade and burn towns to the ground for disobeying them
I gave you actual examples and you in return give an emotional rebuttal without any reference to historical reality.

If you're going to start whining at me just dont talk.