The US "Electoral College"

>QUESTION: then why does DC get one ? I see on 538 they do)
The Constitution was amended to give them a vote as if they were a state.

Twenty-third amendment:
> The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

wow you mean this republic isnt a democracy, amazing observation
>mexican intellectuals

There was an amendment to the US Constitution that specifically grants DC electors in the presidential race.

Faithless electors are a thing, but extremely rare. Some states bind their electors to the state's vote as well.

the reason we have this instead of a pure popular vote is because it's designed to give more influence to small states

it goes all the way back to the founding of the US when Virginia was larger than the smallest 6 colonies combined

D.C. Gets EVs because constitution.
The electors in some states are bound by law to vote for the winner. But the electors themselves are a slate chosen by the campaign.

The states' number of Representatives are determined and recalibrated every ten years, so by extension that means the college is proportional.

Bullshit. Electoral college is the last piece of vertical check and balances against tyranny of the majority

The states elect the president not the people.

This wouldn't even be an issue if the federal government was restricted to the the size of its Original intent.

The only instance of that happening was during wartime, when W. Virginia was created. Legally, a state can decide to separate into other states; it just rarely happens. An example would be California being split between N Cali (Jefferson) and S Cali (California).

West Virginia and Virginia

North and South Dakota.

A state can split but not against its will. Despite what Texasfags think, they don't have a special right by treaty to split into five states. The Constitution is clear that any new states must go through Congress to join the US. A state splitting would need the approval of Congress to do so. The special case of West Virginia brings up conspiracy theories that it isn't really a state since the legislature of the State of Virginia recognized by the United States that allowed for West Virginia to split away wasn't legitimate.

The one of the main reasons why it didn't originally get it and then got it later was that the founders did not expect DC to become a big population center, in their minds going to be almost exclusively government stuff there but as time went on, the population of DC exploded with regular people.

The "don't have to" thing is in some states. In others they have to.

ND and SD were admitted as separate states, r-tard.

electors are not assigned based on population, they are assigned based on number of representatives in both houses of congress.
They can vote for whoever they want, but generally they vote for whoever the people voted for.
I don't agree that D.C. should get an elector, but they do, even though the territories don't. Technically the territories have a different legal status from D.C. so I guess that's why they're different

Also bullshit. Last time they went against the people we got Bush. They aren't fucking smarter or any kind of check or balance. It stops the voice of the people. So instead of the tyranny of the majority, we get the tyranny of the minority.

They aren't some wise ass old people or something who know better for the country, they're a bunch of politicians. We really want their decisions mattering more than ours when deciding who becomes president?

Still needs Congress to approve. A state can't unilaterally split into multiple parts and have each be cognized by the federal government as its own state with two senators each. Congress must admit the new state(s) first.

I know! Fucking federalist bastards!

youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw

Honestly I'm sad I know more information about the Dakotas.

Hopefully I'll forget.

Number of reps + number of senators.

>then why does DC get one
Constitutional Amendment passed to give DC three electoral votes.

>The electors are by tradition vote for who ever the people chose in that states election but technically they don't have to
Technically, it defends on the state. Many states, about half, have laws preventing electors voting against the fill of the people (faithless elector laws)

The reason for electors also has to do with the fact that back when America was founded it was a huge country and the system of electors was really the only way to efficiently relay the votes of the people to the capital.

But the reason states getting the electoral votes system instead of the majority vote picking the president (and relaying that to the capital) is because the founding fathers didn't want America to be ruled by majoritarian politics.

Indirectly you get more house reps based on population so you get more electoral votes from that.

>- Each state given a number of "electors", which are designated people to vote for president on behalf of that state
Correct, except every state is guaranteed at least 3 votes and not every state gets all the votes it should (California and Texas are both short by about 10) to prevent them from steamrolling everything

>- the number of electors is determined by the states population
Yes, see above

>- the territories / islands have no electors since technically they are states (QUESTION: then why does DC get one ? I see on 538 they do)
Correct, territories do not get votes as they are not ratified states.
DC gets one because originally it was just a place for politicians to meet, they never expected it to become so massively populated.

>- The electors are by tradition vote for who ever the people chose in that states election but technically they don't have to
Correct, but it's effectively career suicide to do so.

this.
wtf is the point in voting if our votes don't directly choose the president

yep
it should be abolished
making a handful of states relevant is retarded

they didnt want actual democracy because then a bunch of stupid easily manipulated farmers would elect president

even greeks realized democracy was shit

Also had to do with slave ownership. Slaves used to count into state populations when calculating electoral votes and House seats, so states with a lot of slaves were able to gain more influence by counting people who weren't actually participating in government. Dick move on their part, lessened a little by the nearly-as-dickish 3/5 Compromise, and finally done away with after the Civil War.

You are an idiot

I get why we have it, but it feels kinda shitty knowing that because of where I live, my vote has never really counted in a presidential race, even if I voted for the candidate who won.

WHATS THE BITCH IN OPS PICS NAME?!

So what's stopping Hillary from just buying the electoral college with saudi bucks and barbells?

We're just lucky it's only happened twice (I'm pretty sure it's only twice) ever that the EC and popular vote didn't line up. It could happen this year though, and no matter which way it went, it would make the Bush/Gore disagreement look like a hugging contest.

DEAD PEOPLE ARE REGISTERING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY RIGHT NOW. BIG HAPPENING. IGNORE BEAUTY PAGEANT AND CUBA FALSE FLAGS.

archive.is/K460Q
archive.is/XLipT
archive.is/kNP99
archive.is/0EMpw
archive.is/BLnWv
archive.is/nBkEM
archive.is/fHfrd

that's what I said, dipshit

It's disproportional to actual population because all states get a base number of 3, which is why I said its based on representatives, not population. It's more accurate and an important distinction

one of my biggest worries this election. If they choose hillary over trump and the population chose other wise shit will hit the fan, I guarantee it

It was set up this way so a silver tongued demagogue couldn't successfully be made president by duping the largely ignorant masses. Some would argue Trump is exactly the type of person it was designed to guard against. If we're being honest both candidates should be half way to the sun right now. Reading The Federalist Papers will give you more specific insight into this and other issues surrounding our system of government.

New York and Vermont :)

He gets a lot of shit, but one of the biggest things Al Gore did for the better of the country and preserve the democracy was to concede defeat.

And vice-versa. I've voted for president since 2000, and I haven't even seen this much vitriol going both ways.

It's your number of representatives, which is based on population, plus your number of senators, which is always 2
So for example, california has 53 reps, plus 2 senators, so they have 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 1 rep, plus its 2 senators. So they have 3. Presidential elections are not directly voting for the president. While the ballot will say (Donald J Trump) the vote will actually go towards which party will get the electors. The electors are chosen by the state party, and sent to washington to vote in late december. Any more questions?

The only time a president is literally chosen by the federal government is if nobody gets 270 electoral votes. It happened in 1822 iirc when Jackson won the plurality of the popular vote AND the electors, but he didn't get 270 because there were like 4 people in the race. So the house of representatives (who's speaker was literally running in the fucking election) decided to spite Jackson, and vote for John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams.

DISGUSTING IMAGE OP, GTFO

fuck sauce now !

> Oklahoma

So, the way works here is a winner take all system (like many states). We have 5 districts and 2 senator votes. Total of 7.

So, we are a very red state. However, district 2 in Oklahoma actually has a history if voting Democrat (except for Obama). So that means if we have four districts vote Republican and one vote Democrat, all seven votes go to the Republican candidate.

Essentially the any votes for the democrat candidate literally do not count.
> 2/5 of the state could vote blue, yet their votes are given to the reds

Some states had a huge issue with this. Colorado had 4 districts and they also always split. So no majority, no winner takes all. Colorado had to implement a system where the electoral votes go the candidate the district chose.

Right, right, right... I knew there was one other election (besides 2000) where people had the right to be fucking pissed about the outcome.

Maine, I think, can split theirs, too. Because... Maine? I dunno why.

Yep. I live in OK as well. If we just had a popular vote then it wouldn't be an issue.

it's not bullshit.

it indirectly checks the democrats power of urban areas as a tyrannical overpower of middle america.

popular vote is an awful way to go about things. EC makes sure that the dems power is stayed.

...

Yes, I agree. A popular vote, or at least an electoral split would be more democratic. Large swathes of Americans throw their votes away every presidential election.

However, we cannot do direct voting because the system was designed to incorporate the states as well as the people. Bypassing the electoral college would negate any influence the states themselves have

It goes to my point earlier. Because of where I live, my vote hasn't counted in any presidential election, even when I voted for the guy who won. Just feels kinda shitty.

>inb4 "just move"

>implying the Founding Fathers had prior knowledge of 20th century party politics

reverse image search it u frickin dip

sara microminimus

that's the reason why it's important now, so that the centres of population don't get to bully other states into doing things.

the population-centre bullying the rural areas was a point of tension they wanted to avoid, and it's only had one serious spill-over: the civil war.

it was important then as it is now. It's the way states get a voice.

what the fuck is wrong with that?

>Colorado had to implement a system where the electoral votes go the candidate the district chose.
No, they didn't do that. It's split in two states NE and ME.

>reverse image search it u frickin dip
i did this didn't work

>sara microminimus
thanks user

This.

Those house of Representatives is based off of population (because more voices to be heard) while in the Senate all states have 2 (so less populace areas don't get shafted)

may you have solid, full erections, user

I could have sworn Colorado has a split system as well? I'm possibly mistaken, been a while since I payed much attention.

...

There was an amendment floated over a decade ago that didn't pass. Also, an even number of congressional districts doesn't lead to a tie, because all (I think) winner-take all states are winner-take-all on a popular state level. NE and ME split it by district.

why is a farmer vote more important?

>>Making a handful of states relvant is retarded
That's exactly what abolishing it would do....

Why should the 51% make slaves out of the 49%?

USA isn't a democracy retard.

The only people who were pissed in 2000 were idiots who actually think the "popular vote" is a real thing. It's not. It doesn't exist.

Federal elections are decentralized. Every county and district conducts its own election and it gets aggregated up the food chain.

I live in Michigan and there was talk about changing how voting is done here. But it's virtually impossible because our election system in Michigan is extremely decentralized. Even the state government can't do much to change anything.

The day we elect the president by one massive national vote is the day America is completely dead.

>Mexican intellectuals

there was no middle america when the founding fathers lived.

Electoral college worked fine when only white land-owning males had the vote.

Shit is completely fucked with universal suffrage

Why should the 49% win over the 51%?

instead it's the 10% making slaves out of the 90%
great compromise

What you should really be concerned about are FAITHLESS ELECTORS. Electors aren't generally bound to their state's decision, and can (and have) vote against it. If the DNC/Soros/elites/etc pay off enough electors, they can swing states accordingly. but no one pays attention to that.

I say again,

FAITHLESS ELECTORS

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

So if a state has like 212 + 2/3 is that just an extra black elector

Yall are forgeting about the original intent of a constitutional republic.

No one group or individual is meant to have authority over the inherent rights of others.

So ideally it shouldn't matter who wins since the goverment is suppose to be small enough that anyone in office wouldn't have the authority to do much.

It came about because of the assumption that land area=importance, and that the states were more independent than they are now. 240 years ago, a state like Rhode Island wanted 2 senators like everyone else because it gave them an equal voice. Virginia wanted a bunch of representatives because they had a lot of people and it wasn't fair if they *only* had as much say as Rhode Island. State lines don't matter as much as they used to, and populations, while centered geographically, aren't the "groups" they used to be. Senators nd representatives don't even represent their constituents anymore--they just follow the party line. "Bullying" isn't done by centers of population--it's done by a large number of states with very few people in them, whose electoral votes count disproportionately more than they should because they occupy acreage.

>time of founding
>virgina was 1/4 of the american population and outnumbered the next state 2-1
>the FF couldn't foresee urban areas collecting a disproportionate amount of the population
>they weren't smart enough to foresee a problem with this

try harder m8

it isn't they're more important; it's too make sure they aren't entirely discredited with little to no power. After all, the USA was founded on that principle; dont squash the little guy.

They attempted to found a land that wouldn't splinter like it did during the civil war, but all things considered it's been a very stable country.

it goes far beyond what a portguese could understand, apparently.

OP is a faggot. He will not provide sauce.

this would be partially true ("it's done by a large number of states with very few people in them, whose electoral votes count disproportionately more than they should because they occupy acreage") if the EC wasn't dependant on population (it mostly is) or if the House of Representatives wasn't based on population (it is)

only the senate levels the playing field.

The EC makes sure that even if 100 million cucks in commiefornia vote liberal, it won't matter b/c 55 votes is what they get and they don't get to fuck over the 98 million in middle america. The EC prevents such population-centre bullying.

Because they feed us.

bla bla bla muh founding father bla bla bla

Why should a farmer vote count more?

This basically never happens in any meaningful way, and when it has (lately), it's either been in protest when and didn't affect the outcome, or by error. The Electoral College, as weird as it is, is one of the things people don't tend to fuck with.

The real danger of a faithless elector isn't so much throwing it to Clinton; the states will likely pick electors who are loyal to the party that wins that state. The danger is that the Republicans could use it to deny Trump the win.

If there is a 269-269 tie (or any other situation where no one gets 270 votes), the House of Representatives decides on the president. Here's the danger: they pick from the top three finishers in the electoral college. So all it would take is a single faithless elector to vote for someone like Rubio and then the Republicans in control of a majority of the state delegations in the House could pick Rubio and it would be constitutional.

>this desperate cuck will beg for porn yet he won't even stop Muhammad from fucking his mom

How sad.

see
it's about proportional representation that attempts to safeguard against any hindrances of the original intention of the founding of the united states: unjust or non-existence representation of the people before a government.

Bingo. I think the main reason we keep the electoral college around is because of the distinct difference between American who live in metropolitan vs rural communities.

If we went strictly by popular vote with no electoral college, the interests of the cities would determine the fate of everyone else.

MFW America is really this stupid. Why do you not adopt a palimentary democracy like normal first world countries?

>Mexican intellectuals

But it's *more* people being negated by *fewer* people (100 mil to 98 mil in your example). It doesn't matter where they are.

>pic of hot girl

Fucking fag. That shit is more gay than half the traps. Such a manly face and hair cut. You have shit taste in sluts and you should feel bad.

Checks and balances to keep any single entity from having complete control over the government.

we are a republic, not a democracy (we have representatives).
the state we live in is our nationality, not an arbitrary boundary within another nation (I am a Texan, not an American). we do not make choices since we are easily persuaded by other forces (like how blacks vote democrat despite it usually being against their own interest).

Yeah, some retards wanted to split California for no reason recently, but it never made it to ballot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias

This isn't a normal election though, this is an existential threat to the establishment and the deep state. How many electors would change their vote for a million dollars in cash and a first class ticket to the country of their choice?

the fact you even noticed her face shows how low test you are. go suck a dick.

>"hurr durr my subjective taste is right and yours is wrong"

Fuck off autist

rubio is not in the top three, hes not even a choice in the first place. they would be picking between clinton, trump, and jhonson. at that pint its an issue of "do we want to keep our party in control" or "do we want to keep our political system intact", since it will be mostly republicans making this decision. I would guess trump would win since they would at least keep their party incharge.

Its supposed to stop large states like California from basically being all you need to win. That's why despite California having so many people they don't get to decide the election. Presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the election because of electoral votes

Checks and balances nigga.
A parliamentary democracy gives all the power of government to one political party.

too far gone. you expect a president to give up his power?
parliament is superior though
parliament at least allows the possible of third party influence
but in a presidential system, the importance of the president and its winner-takes-all nature means that those who wish to push through legislation must band together to gain the presidency as well as the legislature

I'll believe it when I see it. Doing so would defacto-exclude them from ever doing anything in politics again. And I'd argue it's equally (un)likely on both sides.

the electors can't pick someone not on the ballot.

one faithless elector prevents a 269-269 tie, it could be 269-268-1 if the elector picked johnson or something, and congress could techincally then select johnson, but they wouldn't.

this has only happened once and i think it was the 2nd or 3rd place guy that congress selected as a compromise candidate. way back, john quincy adams.

> Despite what Texasfags think, they don't have a special right by treaty to split into five states.

You're both right and wrong.

Texas does not have a special right to split into 5 states. They have a perfectly ordinary right to split into 5 states.

The constitution says that a state may be formed from other states with (a) the approval of congress and (b) the approval of the state. West Virginia split from Virginia using this constitutional provision.

However, in the articles of annexation of Texas, Congress gave approval for the new state of Texas to split into up to 5 states. This fulfils condition (a) above, meaning that only condition (b) remains - i.e. Texas can now split with no further input from congress.

This approval-to-split was reiterated later when parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico were sliced off of the original state of Texas leaving its current boundaries - the law accomplishing all this reiterated that this did *not* count towards Texas's preapproved 5-state split, and that the smaller Texas retained its preapproval to split into up to 5 states.

ID ELECT MY DICK AS THE EMPORER OF THAT ASS IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

(it means I would make my penis the sovereign)

All hail Hitler.

wickedweasel.com/en/ww_model_galleries/2573

I come bearing gifts.

This is why we have to keep you out of the USA.
It is good, especially the limited electors so certain states wouldn't even have more sway as they currently do. California has the biggest population, but due to that they cannot get the proper amount of electoral votes in representation of that population. Compared to the Midwestern states like Wyoming which often has a small population they get more votes than they should in proportion to their population.

It would actually make some sense to split up some states, and recombine pieces of others, but there would be so much riding on this decision that there would be no way for it to be negotiated.

>Wyoming
>Midwestern
> Land of cowboys, miners, deserts, mountains, and sagebrush

...

>wickedweasel.com/en/ww_model_galleries/2573

guess my no fap challenge is done for. t-t-thanks user

It's Sara from Wicked Weasel. There is no more except this shoot. Many have searched. Now go vote
Cred Forums archives.cu.ccboard/s/thread /16476768

*cc/board
Antispam made this an ordeal. Check ww via Google she's popular

he's cute

>not wanting a masculine wife so you can have high test sons

>It came about because of the assumption that land area=importance

Since land is one of the VERY few assets that appreciates versus depreciates, that's true

>State lines don't matter as much as they used to

Only in the instance of commercial clause underpinnings

The fact is our fundamental representation, both as a matter of national and statism, is through the venue of state supremacy. It is not, and was not meant to be a direct democracy in any sense.

Not really much to complain about; the people who own things wants control how their property is levied toward others; why not give them a majority say? If your answer response is race, then let me please direct you towards the native tribe legilslation which specifically prohibits their own people from owning land and instead institutes a trust with a fee tail owned by the tribe.

In short, quit bitchin, buy land.

t. Attorney

>- The electors are by tradition vote for who ever the people chose in that states election but technically they don't have to
Almost, but not quite. The electors vote for whomever they want.

- Each state appoints a number of electors equal to the number of congressmen in the state.
- Each state is free to establish it's own rules for choosing electors.
- The way each state DOES happen to choose its electors (but is not obligated to by the constitution) is by letting the public vote for who they want to be president. campaign
- Each candidate on the ballot chooses the people they want to be electors in each state. The candidate, naturally, chooses electors that are loyal to that candidate.
- After the election, the state appoints the electors chosen by the winning campaign.
- The electors, more often then not, vote for the candidate they were chosen by.

So the electors are almost always voting for the candidate they want. Their *decision* is not influenced by the will of the public so much as their *opportunity* to make that decision. There have been protest votes, where electors did not vote for who they appointed to vote for, but it has never changed the outcome of an election.

I see some of you saying "without electorates it would be popular vote". How about a weighted vote? A vote from California, for example, would be multiplied by a coefficient to make it equal to a vote in Rhode Island. There, no human element to screw things up.

god I want to motorboat her butt

Not exactly, but close enough. Right?

youtube.com/watch?v=JfElaWRfWRk

>wanting to give Jew york more voting power.
KYS

butt dat ass tho'