Frogfag here. What does this picture mean?

>You're mixing up primary superdelegates
This is different how, you fucking idiot. They uneducated liberals want to do away with both.

>not a democracy.
>I hope everyone who has ever said this chokes to death on a cock.

Attached: 1573380504809.jpg (750x723, 67K)

Do I really need to explain the difference to you? Are you that slow? Damn that's sad.

Like a monkey flinging poop...

You're reading and replying when you should be comprehending you fucking mongoloid.

Attached: StickFigs.jpg (500x375, 37K)

Uhh... but saying the US is a true democracy is objectively wrong..
Even the pledge of elegance calls it "the republic".
This thread is basically just saying that the electoral college is a bad thing because OP is a liberal cuck who probably heard it on CNN. The reason it exists is so we don't see less populated states/areas ending up with no votes because of all the cock mongers in metropolitan areas.

Let me tell you how we vote here.
There is a box. Civilians who want to work at the electoral post come and operate it. You place a paper in a letter and they check on a book to see if you have a right to vote in this station. You have to show the national ID card with your picture on it, it's given to all citizen for free.

We have yet to hear about hacking our elections or app dysfunctional or being unsure if the machines we use aren't made to steal our vote.
We don't let the dead vote, we don't have problems with buses of people coming from Germany just to vote, we cannot even imagine them.

And you could do a 2 second wiki search to actually inform yourself instead of shit posting about topics you cant even differentiate between you illiterate baby

>true democracy
And... that's how far I got into this post.
You wonder why nobody takes you seriously in real life? Sad.

Attached: 2w4bUUn.jpg (660x495, 100K)

Nah dude the whole world is laughing at you fucking idiots. America is listed as a flawed democracy, because your leaders are protected in putting their own self interests first with little regard for the well being of your country. Only having two parties is fucking dumb , having a system where delegates over throw the popular vote is just plain retarded, this system has only ever benefited republicans it seems. Objectively 3 million more people wanted Hillary and their voices don’t matter, Hillary’s a shill and arguably as bad a person as trump but it’s still a fucking dumb system.

Yeah and that’s a dumb fucking system, if what your voting for is in the minority that’s democracy. Shitty states like Montana getting obscene power in delegates forces candidates to appeal to their need for coal production and shit which is just keeping America in the past. Calling everybody who calls out your retarded system a cuck is plain fucking gay

Superdelegates are a Political Party thing, it has nothing to do with our actual system of government. Political Parties can pick their Nominee based on who can fit more cocks up their ass at one time if they want, which seems to be how the Dems are doing it this year.

It's like the electoral system but the dems love this version.

3 cities would run the entire country otherwise. It would be your equivalent of the citizens in Paris running the country. They would put up restrictions that would seem fine in a major city but would severely effect places like the Camembert

Attached: A25CA493-1F3D-4F4A-8E1A-C2679F59FD88.jpg (674x1024, 26K)

A State's EC votes are based on total population from the Census, which includes any Resident whether they're citizens or not. The result is that States like California are the ones with a disproportionate number of EC votes.
The problem isn't the EC itself, it's that States use Districts which are Gerrymandered, and most use a "winner take all" instead of a Propotional vote.
>but this thread isn't about our elections, it's about Party Nominations

>It would be your equivalent of the citizens in Paris running the country.
Why do you think Macron is the president?

>They would put up restrictions that would seem fine in a major city but would severely effect places like the Camembert
An accurate description of his policies.

Insult me all you want. At the end of the day, you're the one people laugh at for being a mongoloid and not even realizing it.

I dont think a geographic minority should be making decisions for everyone else in their states. I'm not saying that the system isn't flawed, but having majority rule is a much worse idea.

How do you know what he's talking about of you didn't read his post?
>and you really think people take you seriously

there's two main parties because of how voting works
if voting worked by ranking different groups rather than only one group, you wouldn't end up here
but people don't vote for who they want because they know that group won't win and instead vote for the least hated party that is likely to at least stand a chance
because of this over time two parties that are opposed will grow while all other parties shrink.

33% of the US population lives in 4 states.
This means that people of those 4 states have an INCREDIBLE impact in deciding who gets to rule all 50 states
if you think that makes more sense than voting per state I don't know what to tell you

>3 cities would run the entire country otherwise
the wants of the many outweigh the wants of the few. just because you live in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean you matter more.

Funny. For a country so obsessed with democracy to have a little group deciding it all lol

>33% of the electorate getting 20% of the vote due to geography makes sense

it also doesn't mean you matter less though
that's why the electoral college is a thing
it's so that people living in bumfuckistan actually get a voice, since people in libcentral have no fucking clue what's going on outside their little safespace

people in bumfuckistan should have an equal vote to those in bigcitysville. 1 vote should be 1 vote, regardless of where you live.
if you live in low population state, though, your vote is significantly more valuable than if you were in a populous state.

but why is bigcitysville 100x more important when it comes to what happens in bumfuckistan?
Do you not see the issue here?

Imagine if EU nation voted on something and it was population based. Cyprus, malta & luxembourg would get completely & utterly fucked to the point where it's not even worth including them in the vote.

It's not a flawed system, if it wasnt for the electoral college then California and ney york would decide everything for the entire country cause they're more people in those 2 democratic states than the entire midwest wich is mostly Republican

Note the irony, the reps wanted to end the electoral college and to have a direct suffrage, but the dems opposed it as "racist".

>hopes those who speak truth choke,
Yep, democrat.

Attached: 1389027681221.jpg (266x350, 26K)

Except the few are the farmers who produce the food and the working class who produce the necessities the many need to survive. So yea let's not have the people actually supporting our country have a voice you fucking retard

Who matters more the liberal who lives in NY who owes 30k in debt or the wheat farmer in Oklahoma who provides food for our nation

>but why is bigcitysville 100x more important when it comes to what happens in bumfuckistan?
it's not. its exactly as important. more people just live in bigcitysville, so more votes come from there. representatives are an abomination, and lead to gerrymandering. i live in louisiana, and my vote is dropped in the trash if it's not for a republican.
it should be a popular vote.

they should matter the same. the farmer should not matter more just because hes in a low-pop state.

for people who dont understand electoral votes..

Why should california, ny, nj, and florida, the literal shitholes of the USA decide who is the next president?

Not that it matters. The presidency is a joke.

because the majority of americans live there

Based.
I may be what most people consider a libcuck, however the problem here is without question the result of decades of Gerrymandering and the wack-ass winner takes all system that was birthed out of love for corporations.

so a bunch of niggers and mexicans should decide?

This guy sums it up
It's time for the Soros funded dickhead that keeps making these threads to go away
We are not going to change our minds comrade

Fuck off

i dont think a bunch of niggers and mexicans are the majority of americans. if they are, then they should decide what's best for their country.
why should a minority control the government?

No......this thread is about the same thing all your threads are about
Trying to convince everyone to eliminate the Electoral college
It's enough already with you user, we don't agree with you
Hopefully you are making many Shekels from comrade Soros for you to do this all day every day

Now you are trying to convince people in the smaller issue of party nominations to agree with your larger issues regarding the electoral college. We all see through you and disagree with everything you say

Go look at a trap thread and give us a few hours to watch wrekt thread and argue about vidya

Democrats dont have souls and they are a bunch of crybabies so it's ok.

Basically this

Well, if you want a popular vote, then guess how often your vote will be dropped?
Every single damn time.
Even if you voted for the person who won!
It would matter fuck all because the states that have already been mentioned and already been explained.
Do you need a fucking picture?
I mean, fuck. How on earth do you not understand that?
It's simple.
So. So. Simple.
You want a popular vote?
We need to break the country up.
No other way would work.

People also need to realize how large the US is.
Most European countries are tiny.
Our western states dwarf nearly all of them.
Oregon is half the size of Spain for goodness sakes.

>more people just live in bigcitysville, so more votes come from there.
but why does that matter? why do they get to decide what happens in the entire US simply because there's more people living in that small section?
if the 40 smallest states vote one way, why should the 10 largest states get to decide against them?

Plus these people forget that going full Democracy means large groups other than libtard can take over

Say for instance all the Catholics and other sensible Christians decide..no more killing babies......abortion gone

Maybe white people decide, eh I'm done paying for no work drug addict lazy blacks......goodbye welfare

And I'm sure if we split up the country you'd definitely fine pockets like that.

Btw. I'm all down for things like the State of Jefferson.

it's utilitarianism.
here's an analogy.
you're having a party. you can buy one ice cream flavor, chocolate or vanilla.
there are 10 groups coming to the party. 9 of them are single individuals, and one group is an enormous family of 1000 people. that is to say, 1009 people in total are coming.

now, all the individuals want chocolate, but the 1000 member family wants vanilla. tough shit for the individuals, because a majority want vanilla. why the fuck would you try to appease this tiny group of 9 people, when the vast majority, even though they're from the same family (read: state), want something different?

understand this as "i dont give a fuck where you live".

here's another, more concrete example. let's say you ship every single fucking american to utah. then you pluck out 49 people, and drop one of them in each other state. are you saying that the 300 million people now in mega-utah should not out-vote the 49 people who just so happen to occupy the rest of the geographical US?

Attached: 1343462907892.gif (191x170, 21K)

Even if we didn't split up the country those things could happen

The libs that want to scrap the Electoral college because their candidate lost make the mistake of believing their own shit posts and think everyone agrees with them because Hillary won popular vote

If you take out LA and SF she lost the popular vote

It means someone didn't pay attention in civics class.

Alot of people wish we could have laws that require IDs to vote but the left here takes issue with that and says its racist

>If you take out LA and SF she lost the popular vote
>if you remove some of the voters, she lost the popular vote
what the fuck kinda argument is that?
"if you ignore 13% of the population, there are half as many crimes"

if you ignore the poorest half of people on earth, everyone is doing pretty well economically.

Awww your socialist professor and Soros thinktank come up with the cutest scenarios to try to trick....err I mean convince people you are right

You even use Utah in the example to try to appeal to the people you feel are subhuman idiots that you have to govern

Well done starpupil

You want to appease that tiny group because they basically own the cows and grains your cake and ice cream came from.
Do you realize how quickly your stores would empty of food if you told the farmers to pound sand?
What do you think is in the middle of the damn country, you fool?
You think people who talk about driving through wheat and corn fields for miles and miles is a joke?
So yeah, when those 1000 useless family members show up, and don't contribute a damn thing, then they can suck a dick.
Or they can have a chocolate ice cream cone.
Their choice.

It's not an argument, she was losing the popular vote until those two areas were added to the tally.

What if next time it was your candidate is winning the popular vote but texas hasn't been added

Your whole opinion on this is based on your feelings that Hillary was robbed of her birthright by a bunch of ignorant racists that live in areas that are only there to serve the highly educated enlightened people such as yourself. You can't seem to process her loss even after almost four years so you want to punish someone somewhere and change the rules so you can't lose anymore

Grow up

So where do you live, moron?
I want to know your chances of survival when people start to riot and kill for food.
Or how easy it will be for you to access hunting grounds.
I have this feeling in the back of my mind that you wouldn't be able to harvest any animal to begin with.
I just want an idea how how frustrating it will be for you.

>Let's make a political systen where the people that make your food are ignored

genius

the u.s. is a republic retard

>You want to appease that tiny group because they basically own the cows and grains your cake and ice cream came from.
we're not dividing the voters based on their occupation.
i live in a shithole town because i design chemical plants and oversee their operation for a living. people vote against their own best interest, and i don't even know why. indifference i assume. i live in the states we're talking about here. i'm not in CA, i'm not in NY. i'm in a shithole in louisiana, because that's where the jobs are.
the founding fathers had the right idea when landed men had suffrage, because they actually know what they're voting for. i go to a polling place and i see a line of 50-somethings squinting at the sample ballot, reading it for the first time.

but i don't get a say in that. it's hypothetical. a lot of people exist to pull levers and breathe air. and both you and me have zero influence on some sort of radical overhaul of the voting system in america. i do like to hear your thoughts on it, and to voice my own, because i believe it's important to hear points other than your own, regardless of how credible i think they are or are not.

None you don't get it user..us stupid folk in the middle of the country will continue to serve them because we are told to.....and also they will have the federal government pave the street in front of our house cause you know "infrastructure"

Oh and also because they will take our guns

50 somethings worked, paid taxes, contributed. They deserve the same say as anyone else.....also won't all of us be 50 somethings some day

see
hillary is a rat. i didn't vote for her. but if 250 million americans (hypothetically) wanted hillary, then she should have gotten the position.

It means if the DNC doesn't like the popular candidate they can just over ride all of democracy and vote for the candidate they want.
It only works in the primary though, and Republicans don't use it at all.

Basically, it is how we ended up with Trump

But if they want to win the election, why ignore the popular candidate?

Because city dwellers are almost universally nothing but consumerist insects, living in a massive hive. The only thing they do is service each other. They barely produce anything, barely manufacture anything. Almost every major city in the western world could lose 90% of its population overnight and all that would happen is that property value would plummet. City dwellers are nothing but bodies, all they do for a nation is artificially inflating their GDP through the taxation of the services they provide each other. Oh, and they're also a great source of cannon fodder when the nation needs defending. That's about it.

Meanwhile if 90% of the people in the countryside disappeared overnight you'd be almost immediately beset by mass famines, a collapse in energy generation, skyrocketing mineral costs, and all the other civilisation-critical things that cityfags are incapable of doing themselves.

Ever been to a big city? Full of poor useless benefits-scrounging trash, immigrants and minorities that do nothing but sponge off the system and shit out more and more kids. Cityfags matter less. It's the same across the entire first world.

>we're not dividing the voters based on their occupation.
Because doing that would be a ludicrously difficult amount of bureaucracy. Dividing it across general urban/rural lines has a near-similar effect with infinitely less awkwardness.

Ask Hillary.

Hillary probably would have won if she realized she needed to campaign in the rust belt

You can read President Trump's comments on his campaign

He barely campaigned in New York or California because they are blue from the start, she spent all her time in those two places having fundraisers with Weinstein and actors because she thought she had it won

He campaigned all over the great lakes region and he won the electoral college

Look it up and read his comments

they do deserve the same say as anyone else. but they're easily manipulated. so am i. i don't do my due diligence, and what really bothers me is that i go out of my way to learn about these things.

i'm registered republican. i get letters in the mail every single election, not telling me what is up for the vote, but telling me "vote yes on this one and no on that one". not an explanation why-- just saying "if you're a good republican you ought to do this". and that works. a lot of people are partisans.

i don't want my gun rights infringed. i keep a glock 19 in my center console, and a glock 43 ccw. i plink targets with an mmr 5.56.
i want people to smoke weed, or crack, or heroin if they want to. i want you to be able to have an abortion if you want to. you can cut off your dick and sew it to your forehead if you want to.

i don't want people's rights infringed. period. you should be free to do whatever the fuck you want if it doesn't hurt others, period.

what really chaps my ass though is when i see the guys i work with, some of them are smart fucking dudes, and they are giving up their own rights because they don't understand the consequences of their vote, or don't care.

the education is the problem. the "system" is a fucking abomination. screening out "boomers" because i don't agree with them is not right, but man there's no fucking way the MAJORITY of people really understand what they're voting for. not just presidents, i'm talking state constitutions, local positions. i know i sure as fuck don't feel all that confident of the implications of my vote.

Pretty sure that’s what oligarchy means

>we're not dividing the voters based on their occupation.

It's just a fact though. Most of your food comes from...not the city.
If the only votes that matter are the ones coming from the city, then your definitely separating people by occupation.

And it's not so much your separating them by their occupation, but you have a separation of reality so to speak.
Folks in the city know jack crap about farming or how to operate one. How are they going to vote good policies in and keep bad ones out?

As for the voting. Yeah. It sucks that most young people don't take it seriously.
But we do have the power to change things.
And some times it takes a radical overhaul. But it needs to be the right overhaul. As of now, our system has worked for nearly 250 years.
It may be flawed, but that's the fault of man, not the system.
So we should fix the human flaws.
Then proceed from there.

i live in a shithole town because i design chemical plants and oversee their operation for a living. people vote against their own best interest, and i don't even know why. indifference i assume. i live in the states we're talking about here. i'm not in CA, i'm not in NY. i'm in a shithole in louisiana, because that's where the jobs are.
the founding fathers had the right idea when landed men had suffrage, because they actually know what they're voting for. i go to a polling place and i see a line of 50-somethings squinting at the sample ballot, reading it for the first time.

but i don't get a say in that. it's hypothetical. a lot of people exist to pull levers and breathe air. and both you and me have zero influence on some sort of radical overhaul of the voting system in america. i do like to hear your thoughts on it, and to voice my own, because i believe it's important to hear points other than your own, regardless of how credible i think they are or are not.

Ignore the bottom part of that where I repeated part of the other dudes comment.
I had to copy and past it to refer to it, and forgot to delete it.
Such is life.

Gee, if only there were some kind of system that educated people about their rights and responsibilities, or like a news industry or something that kept people informed about the issues in an impartial, fact-based way.

Now you are making sense user
You are sounding libertarian
And yes are schools are a huge colossal problem, the progressives have waged a 100 year war on our society and they control the teachers union
Generations of us know more about man's adverse effects on the environment and malcolm X than understand how our government works....that is by design

It falls to us to teach the next generation to cherish our tight to vote and to take an active interest in it. To understand the issues and formulate our beliefs and opinions then back the candidates we feel match those

Nobody should vote based on those stupid mailings or how a Facebook post tells them, but the progressives have dumbed down generations of people to that point

then don't be surprised when you're killed in an uprising

I'd say we definitely need more education and emphasis on the importance of our government, elections, and how it all works.
And we need more people like you to scream and shout for these changes.
We need people like you to go up to your buddies at work and let them know how certain laws effect them, or how they might effect them.
The more people that are educated, the more changes we'd see.

It means someone is retarded as fuck and needs an education.

i get it. i think the part where me and others in this thread are disagreeing is more a problem with language, or with the system.

i'm not saying farmers shouldn't have a vote. i'm not saying they should be at the mercy of urban voters.

the fact that there is a significant difference in values of the rural and urban voter IS the problem. it doesn't have to be a zero sum "if i'm winning then you're losing". it OUGHT to be that the city voters can understand how they are dependent on the labor of the farmers.

it's all interconnected. an arbitrary system like an electoral college is a crutch. it takes away agency from the citizen.

is it fair to expect not just the average, but every voting citizen to perfectly predict the consequences of their vote? perhaps not, but if we're fantasizing, man wouldn't that be great!

i'm not a politician. i didn't study government and law in college. i don't know what the solution is. the system we have now is obviously flawed. there wouldn't be any point in arguing if it wasn't. how do you fix it though? i haven't the faintest clue.

Attached: retarder.jpg (576x768, 98K)

>there are 10 groups coming to the party. 9 of them are single individuals, and one group is an enormous family of 1000 people. that is to say, 1009 people in total are coming.
>now, all the individuals want chocolate, but the 1000 member family wants vanilla. tough shit for the individuals, because a majority want vanilla.
I would get chocolate because it appeases to 9/10 groups and the tenth group should understand that they're the minority in this equation.

"b-but the 1000 members!" doesn't really apply. Imagine they're different mob mafias or whatever, would you upset 9 mafia families because one that's larger wants things the other way?

get over it already, she lost, your orange baboon won, jesus stop whining about Hillary.

that's the crux of it though, isn't it? when you can draw the lines, you decide who wins.
split up that 1000 equally among all groups, and now you've got 100 people in each group voting for vanilla, and only one chocolate voter each. all groups are almost totally in agreement now. 99% of voters and 100% of groups are in agreement.

that's gerrymandering.

I don't pick who is in what group
By appealing to as many groups as possible, you keep people happy. If the chocolate eater in a group is upset with the result, he can take it up with his own personal group.
If everyone in a group prefers chocolate however, the blame falls entirely on me, as they were the only representative of said group and the majority of groups wanted chocolate
if you have a working brain you should see how this isn't gerrymandering

the groups are arbitrary. they're analogous to states, or districts. that's the point i was trying to make initially. anything but a popular vote can necessarily be abused depending on how you draw the boundaries.

Attached: 720px-DifferingApportionment.svg.png (720x1400, 67K)

well, it means that he is a super delegate which is 10 to the power of 10 times more powerful than a delegate so he has the added title of SUPER
he probably had to do a herculean task to earn the title so it is completely fair

think of it like super man who can shoot laser beams from his eyes and who has superhuman strength, it is just like that

how the fuck is that arbitrary?
it's not like they take a group that's 80% california, 10% texas & 10% wyoming.
States are already a well established group with well established borders. If states can have different laws and such, why is that not a problem to be considered as a group, but suddenly when they're considered a group for elections it's arbitrary?

This

The people butt hurt should have been more selective when voting for the person to best represent their interests.

think about it for a bit. like, to the logical conclusion.
some examples:
you live on the border of california and nevada. you live in nevada because it's cheaper but work in california. you drive two hours to work every day.

you live in florida. let's say 40% of people are democrats and vote democrat always. the 60% of people who vote republican mean that all your state's electors vote republican. your democratic vote is worthless.

say you live in austin texas. your predominantly democratic county gets split into multiple republican dominant counties by the republican held legislature in 2003.

Attached: TravisCountyDistricts.png (1117x622, 25K)