>win 10/50 states
Americans will defend this
>win 10/50 states
Americans will defend this
No I won't.
People should have voting power, not rocks and trees.
actually the majority of us dont weve been calling for redistribution of electoral points for years.
>overweight guy gets less votes than 2 tiny people who weigh less than him together
Americans will trip over themselves to prop up this failed idea.
What is population
See all those states with 3s? That's their actual population. That's why they don't count for shit.
don't through rocks when you live in a fat house, britlad
>win over half the population
>win the election
>Win the states with the largest populations and you win the presidency
>OP is too dumb to understand population density
look up population numbers for those 10 states and tell me what you've learned
You've got it wrong, OP
>Represent half the population
>Get exactly half the vote
American democracy works, I suppose.
>implying hordes should have control over rural communities
The founding fathers didn't want a complete democracy, so no, the election is not democratic.
>wh-why dont my empty farmlands count for votes?!
It's not democratic, it was never intended to be democratic
When the system was set up only a small subset of men could even vote and they only voted for electors who would vote for senators and then eventually vote for president
also when there were only 13 states they were all much closer to each other in population there was not the massive difference between states like Wyoming and California
The reality of America changed but the rules have only changed a little bit, that is the problem
They're redistributed every census.
>3 million people vote in state with 26 electoral votes
>3.5 million people vote in state with 25 electoral votes
>First state's candidate wins
On a side note it is still a terrible system. It prevents third party rise and encourages consolidation of parties. 49% of the state voted red guy while the other 51% voted blue guy. red guy gets NOTHING. A real world scenario where this happened was Bush vs Gore where Gore won the most votes but Bush still won.
It's a bad system. Should just be a popular vote.
I agree, we should do away with winner takes all in the Electoral College
Federation, not democracy.
The problem with pure popular vote is it would make candidates focus on the fuck huge city centers like NYC and LA. Granted, we already have something similar now (candidates focusing on "swing states" like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, etc.) however, if the Electoral college was proportional instead of winner takes all, candidates would actually have to visit and campaign in all 50 states.
Well then why not just do popular vote? If less people in those 10 states vote than the other 40 combined, then clearly those people in those 10 states don't care enough about the presidency. So why should there be a case where California has less people voring than, say, all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa combined, but California would still have more votes than all four of those states combined when the people of California clearly didn't care as much as the people in the other four states to vote?
Problems with America
1. you vote for the president separate to the parliament
2. you use first-past-the-post
3. you have a legally binding bill of rights, which turns the supreme court into a defacto legislative body with huge power that's staffed by unelected officals who are there for life
4. you don't have compulsory voting
Fix these four things and America would be able to join the rest of us in the first world.
>4. you don't have compulsory voting
This would literally be the worst idea for America. The majority of people who vote now are largely apathetic to our political process for most of a presidents term. The last thing we need is to double or triple that number of apathetic low information voters
the idea is to give states with lower populations a reason to stay in the union faggot
they do in fact, to a greater degree than city votes
lets say you have a state with 100 people in it, voting against a state with 50,000,000.
The state with 50,000,000 gets 50 votes in the EC, 100 pop gets 1.
Do the math, rural votes count more than city votes.
You should continue using the electoral college though
Apathetic low-information voters provide a check on extremism. America has batshit crazy politics because the only people who vote are the batshit crazy people. By injecting a huge number of normal people into politics you steer it away from stupid issues like gun control and towards things that are actually relevant to people, like working conditions and collective bargaining reform.
No we won't, democracy in the BEST case scenario is just 51% oppressing 49%, I won't defend that shit.
Yes we should, but the winner takes all thing needs to go.
>By injecting a huge number of normal people into politics you steer it away from stupid issues like gun control and towards things that are actually relevant to people
Thats only if you have a population that isnt hopelessly retarded and easily manipulated.
Why the fuck does DC have 3 electoral votes?
Why the fuck is DC allowed to vote in presidential election in the first place?
This. It's a bullshit design. The dems love it because it's given them a lot of power.
>dems love it because it's given them a lot of power
The system gives rural voters greater proportional representation compared with urban voters, and lately rural voters have gone full Republican.
STFU WHITE TRASH RETARD
They've always been republican. You're thinking of Britain bro.
You realize that scenario is literally impossible, right?
what is southern democrats
Texas until 1928
23rd Amendment gave DC electoral voting rights. It has always been complicated because DC isn't a state. It is a territory under direct federal control, and the federal government can't elect itself, but the people who live there do have the right under the Constitution to representation. So they get one non-voting member in the House, but no Senators because they aren't a real state. Yet they get thee electoral votes because reasons.
It could all be solved by requiring DC residents to become Maryland residents instead.
>The system gives rural voters greater proportional representation compared with urban voters
No it doesn't. The urban populations of New York and California essentially dictate that 84 electoral votes will go the Democratic candidate every four years.
you forgot your proxy
Probably because a majority of Americans live in those 10 states? Dumbfuck.
Read that comic before
Pretty hot desu
Explain the 2000 Election for me please
> By injecting a huge number of normal people into politics you steer it away from stupid issues like gun control and towards things that are actually relevant to people, like working conditions and collective bargaining reform.
and the much smaller population of the Midwest dictate that a greater number of electoral votes per person go to the Republican candidate
It's called weighted representation.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE LIKE TEN PEOPLE BEING GIVEN FIVE VOTES AND VOTING ONE WAY VERSUS ONE PERSON BEING GIVEN ONE WHOLE VOTE AND VOTING ANOTHER WAY
WHICH IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN REALITY BUT PERFECTLY DEMONSTRATIVE OF THE MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE IN QUESTION
>b-but muh cities have more people in them
THAT MEANS THEY HAVE
LESS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION THAN RURAL AREAS
THIS IS BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE WOULDNT BE A REASON FOR RURAL STATES TO REMAIN IN THE UNION
In addition, with the total number of voting representatives in Congress capped at 435, as urban centers in these states grow in population, the lowest population states arbitrarily lose representation.
The system is disproportionate, but in the opposite way you argue it. In order to approach the "ideal" of one representative per 100,000 people, the actual number of representatives would have to be closer to something like 1435, and the "all-or-nothing, first-past-the-post, two-party" system would have to be abolished. Both parties play this system to their advantage, so we are unlikely to see any real electoral reform for a very long time. Requiring a valid photo ID for voters would be a good first step.
Also, it's cute how you're referencing politics from 88 years ago.
If you actually did win those states you probably also won the popular vote unless every voter in the rest of the states voted blue.
wtf map is this? Its not accurate.
>texas and california the same colors
>I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPS I AM RIGHT YOU ARE DUMB
I didn't even bother reading your facetious non-arguments because you sound like a freshman political science major with a hard-on for social democracy.
You need to brush up on your math, son. When the urban populations of two states control 20% of the electoral college, it's kind of hard to say those urban populations are lacking representation.
not a long time you know
>as urban centers in these states grow in population, the lowest population states arbitrarily lose representation
I am not understanding your point.
It seems to me like if an urban center is capped in terms of it's representation, any population increase would see their total proportional representation decrease and vice versa.
every state should run it's own election. the candidate that wins the state's election receives that state's 1 vote in the national election.
Your country has an average IQ of 100. That means around 70% of the people *legally required to vote* have an IQ below the median intelligence of a high school teacher (109). Can you see how that would be a bad thing?
actually 11 states, but I agree
good thing is those states are pretty mixed between solid red, solid blue, and in between
Using FPTP is mistake.
Some of those states really do need to be broken up. The ones like CA and NY have cities that are practically entirely different people and places than the rest of the state.
30 million people is just straight up too many people for one governor. That's the size of or bigger than some entire first world countries.
You make two assumptions here.
1. that unintelligent people vote less when they're not being forced to vote
2. that unintelligent people don't deserve a vote
The first assumption is unsupported, and probably unlikely. Unintelligent people are exactly the kind of person who are likely to have loud and strongly held opinions and the time to waste voting about them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the percentage of regular voters in America who were unintelligent was a lot higher than the same percentage here. In fact, American voting is uniquely susceptible to these extremes: Australian voting is not, because it is insulated by the huge quantity of perfectly average people who vote.
The second assumption is equally unsupported. I don't think you can defend the institution of voting without defending the right of the unintelligent to participate. If you're going to argue that unintelligent people shouldn't vote because it leads to bad outcomes then you're really just arguing half of the way towards society being ruled by an intellectual elite. Democracy is not about good outcomes or efficiency. It's about democracy for democracy's sake.
>not a long time you know
>UN Declaration of the State of Israel
>Peoples' Republic of China
>Vietnam proxy war
>Civil Rights movement
>Cuban Missile Crisis
>Great Society programs
>Civil Rights Acts
>Hippies and other counter-culture movements
>Vietnam War ends, Saigon falls the NVA anyway
>several wars over Israel/Palestine
>First Gulf War
>World Trade Center v0.9 (1991)
>World Trade Center v1.0 (9-11)
>Second Gulf War
>numerous other events I don't care to list here
So much has happened in this century. In no other point in human history have we been able to do so much to improve the world and at the same time wield so much power to destroy it. Don't fucking tell me 1928 "wasn't that long ago."
>It seems to me like if an urban center is capped in terms of it's representation
That is not what I said. I said "as the population of states increase, the states with the lowest populations lose representation." The total number of representatives is capped, not the representation of the individual states. The lowest number of reps any state can have is one. That is literally how it is laid out in the Constitution. This directly benefits the states with massive urban populations by siphoning representative power from rural states with static population growth instead of creating new seats in Congress for better representation for everyone.