What does that even have to do with the electoral college in it's current state? It was made so that demagogues wouldn't be voted to the highest office in the land and electors were supposed to vote according to their own wishes. Now your system is a frankensteins' monster which is a popularity contest where people campaign in a few swing states whose electors end up swinging to one side or the other.
The UK has Lord Buckethead standing next to May and Elmo for goofs and traditions to show that all 3 candidates are equal while they await the voter's response. America has a system where someone can trail by 3 million votes, win in states by a margin of 80000 and be declared president with a bloated executive portfolio.
Jose Morgan
...
Xavier Clark
shjtposting is saving Veeky Forums
Christian Brooks
And who plays the great game now? We do. Not you, and that's something you pawned off on us.
Xavier Garcia
>we do sweetie, your country is about to go back to mining coal and disregarding scientific facts. Your election system resulted in delivering a man who can't speak properly.
Matthew Rogers
Its because its more than just about population you fucking retarded twat. How do you not get it? Are you legitimately retarded, or are you so married to the idea of "Farmers have more representation than me" idea that you cannot see it as fallacious?
The problem is that Individuals are more than just individuals. States are not like fucking counties, they are micro-nations with their own economies and cultures. If you were to count everything up based on popular vote, due to the concentration of the population the only centers of political power and control in the country would be in places like New York, Massachusetts, and Los Angelas. As time would go one, since the votes of the people in the less populated parts of the country would not have as much weight, the candidates would then ignore those people in favor of campaigning in only those heavily concentrated areas. Those cities have different markets, cultures, and resources than the less populated onces, which means that a candidate focused on winning and appeasing to those pockets of the population, which would result in them forsaking and not even attempting to make efforts to reach out to people in the rest of the country. This would in turn breed a heavy air of resentment towards the high-density areas be those living in the less dense areas, which will result in either secession and/or an increased drop in voter turnout in those areas even greater than we have now. Meanwhile the Electorate system makes it so that the candidates have to make at least a some effort to try and reach out of people in other states and locales and try to show them that they're at least present in the candidates mind and that he's actually putting in the effort to try and address them and their needs. With a Popular Vote only system, they wouldn't even get that much of a concession. How would you feel if your PM Candidates feel that your county wasn't important enough to ever visit or even address or acknowledge you
Gabriel Perry
We do have a party, it's the monster raving looney party. They had a better immigration policy than either of the main 2 parties did.
Xavier Torres
And the US will still be more economically important than England either way.
William Murphy
Which is because of the cities that are being being undercut in an election that would be direct in a normal country.
Julian Martinez
I would vote based on the party whose policies that I agree with the most. They would be elected in the legislature and form the next executive
