Author Topic: [News] Electors Plot to Sabotage Donald Annoying Orange  (Read 4583 times)

Representive Democracy

Say it with me now.

Representive democracy (and I guess i should have specified that in the op.)

Also, voting against the will of the people is undemocratic, and will result in a civil war

ok ya stop talking you don't know how to debate



the problem is that the electoral college can cast their vote for whoever they want, regardless of what the majority win was in their state
the people could say "vote Annoying Orange" and the electors could just go "eh Imma vote Killary"
that goes directly against the main purpose of the electoral college, which is to give smaller states a fair say in who represents them in the executive branch
with that caveat the system, if the electors rebel this goes from a representative democracy to purely undemocractic; it's literally the argument made against taxation w/o representation
and that's why people talk about "zomg 2nd civil war"

if the electors rebel this goes from a representative democracy to purely undemocractic
Actually no, it would still be a representative democracy. The electors would be choosing to vote for whoever got the popular vote. That still falls under a representative democracy/democratic republic.

It would just be a slightly different form of democracy.

imo the electoral college doesn't help small states get attention it just makes people's individual votes in bigger states mean less, and basically make voting pointless in solely red or blue states since your vote will almost never matter

imo the electoral college doesn't help small states get attention it just makes people's individual votes in bigger states mean less, and basically make voting pointless in solely red or blue states since your vote will almost never matter
"X+Y isnt greater than or equal to Z, Z is just less than or equal to X+Y"

Also, voting against the will of the people is undemocratic, and will result in a civil war
the will of the people is that clinton should've won, dumbass

she's leading the popular vote by 2.5 million

"X+Y isnt greater than or equal to Z, Z is just less than or equal to X+Y"

the will of the cities is that clinton should've won, dumbass

she's leading the popular vote by 2.5 million
FTFY

-snip-
Ya know, at least I gave an explanation on why your stuff made no sense.

imo the electoral college doesn't help small states get attention it just makes people's individual votes in bigger states mean less, and basically make voting pointless in solely red or blue states since your vote will almost never matter

You do realize that the rust belt states changed the entire outcome of the election right? They normally always vote Democrat. Wisconsin hasn't voted Republican since Reagan and Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't voted red since bush senior. Hell Texas was considered a swing state this year.

ok ya stop talking you don't know how to debate



the problem is that the electoral college can cast their vote for whoever they want, regardless of what the majority win was in their state
the people could say "vote Annoying Orange" and the electors could just go "eh Imma vote Killary"
that goes directly against the main purpose of the electoral college, which is to give smaller states a fair say in who represents them in the executive branch
with that caveat the system, if the electors rebel this goes from a representative democracy to purely undemocractic; it's literally the argument made against taxation w/o representation
and that's why people talk about "zomg 2nd civil war"
Electors have "rebelled" many times in the past.

The ability for electors to vote differently than their states is part of the electoral college.  Either you like the college, or you don't.

You can't like the system when it works in your favor, then suddenly hate it when it doesn't. Make up your mind and stick with it.  


lmao I hope you realize you're helping support MY side
What, that the cities should be in control and forget everyone else?
Guess what, the cities arent the only things that make up the United States.

You do realize that the rust belt states changed the entire outcome of the election right? They normally always vote Democrat. Wisconsin hasn't voted Republican since Reagan and Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't voted red since bush senior. Hell Texas was considered a swing state this year.
A couple states voting differently does not invalidate that. The point is, if you vote differently than your states leaning, 4/5ths of the time your vote has zero effect. It cannot and will not differentiate between a 49/51 split and a 1/99 split, and that's a huge problem.

What, that the cities should be in control and forget everyone else?
Guess what, the cities arent the only things that make up the United States.
Dude, that's not what the popular vote does. The popular vote makes sure the most people get who they voted for. Sure land is important too, but if 80% of your state is uninhabited then there's no reason to pay attention to all that uninhabited land. People are the main thing that matter in a country.

Cities don't have that much of a percentage of the population.
Let's take Ohio for example. (Why? It's the best state, duh.)
All the cities except Dayton in Ohio are liberal, and Ohio still voted Annoying Orange.

Popular vote in Ohio: 2,841,005 for Annoying Orange, 2,394,164 for Clinton.
Population of Dayton: 143,355
Even if all the cities in Ohio voted Clinton, Annoying Orange still won the rural areas overwhelmingly.

matt's the kind of person to say that siberia is more important than western russia because siberia is bigger

Cities don't have that much of a percentage of the population.
Let's take Ohio for example. (Why? It's the best state, duh.)
All the cities except Dayton in Ohio are liberal, and Ohio still voted Annoying Orange.

Popular vote in Ohio: 2,841,005 for Annoying Orange, 2,394,164 for Clinton.
Population of Dayton: 143,355
Even if all the cities in Ohio voted Clinton, Annoying Orange still won the rural areas overwhelmingly.
What about the cities in CA or NY?