In a country where a candidate who gets the most votes can still lose the election(gore). Why is it that you continue to vote, why do you think your vote matters, thank you I await your response.
>>66708426
electoral college.
do you even?
That is my point while the electoral college is in place unless you are the electoral official than what does your vote matter when they can decide against the majority?
>>66708426
What is the electoral collage? A pure democracy has drawbacks (majority abuse of minorities), a hybrid constitutional republic like the US is much better.
Why even have a vote if the people who make the final decision can go against the wishes of the people who sent them there?
>>66709030
>>66709403
The electoral college acts as a layer between the straight popularity vote which prevents a majority faction from violating rights of smaller groups.
The founding fathers called this concept the "the tyranny of the majority" and pretty much acknowledged straight up most people are stupid or gullible and there needs to be some sort of counter measure.
>>66708426
>goldman
LEL
Ok so please explain why your vote counts if you are not the electoral college official, please
>>66710114
Your contribution has been the best so far unfortunately lol
>>66710212
Because you are voting for the electors. Your vote helps determine whether your state sends republican or democratic electors.
>>66710466
But if they decide to go against the wishes of the people than how did your vote matter?
>>66708617
electoral college is a 10/10 meme
it's extremely rare when the electoral voters are unfaithful, usually done as a stand against a candidate who got btfo
>>66711103
The fact that it's even possible to be unfaithful is a problem
>>66711248
I agree
>>66711103
While rare it has happened and could happen again but just keep thinking your vote is important make sure to get us a good candidate this time lol
I don't trust the electoral process, especially with the fucking voting machines, media manipulation, all that shit.
Commie Kike had ridiculous buzz on social media after the first debate and CNN (owned by Warner Bros. 3rd biggest contributer to Clinton campaign) hops on and modified their own stats that they'd posted earlier
Trump 2016
>>66708426
>>66708426
I like the stickers tbqh.
>>66710846
>>66711248
Because you elected them to make a rational, well-informed choice.
Electors are nominated by the political parties who are compelled to make sure they're very loyal party members.
There has to be an extremely important issue for an elector to go against their party, e.g. they believe the nominee will violate the constitution or was elected illegally.
>>66710114
If Goldman don't like it then its probably a good thing. Do the exact opposite of what they say.
>>66708426
Hello, nice try Shlomo but the people are coming for your head.
>>66711922
But ultimately it's the choice of that person and unless it's you your Vote literally means nothing
>>66712245
First I'm not a Jew second no one is coming for my head third you are probably mildly if not full blown retarded get faked nigger we are trying to discuss things
>>66712155
>>66710114
You guys think it's bad, you should read some of the other things she said. She was a commie feminist and friends with the guy who killed McKinley.
The only good thing about her is she said women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
>>66712530
Please stick to the issue at hand this isn't a thread about Jews
>>66712262
>unless it's you your Vote literally means nothing
Completely false. Electors are elected by direct vote who almost always vote for their party's candidate.
That's like saying unless you're actually president yourself, you're vote means nothing since a politician can reverse his stance on any issue at any given time.
>>66712776
t. Schlomo Shekelstein
>Don't vote, goy, it won't accomplish anything! By the way, have you heard of this guy Marx?
>>66712916
>almost always
I guess if almost always is good enough for you than keep voting
>>66713051
Idiot I never said not to vote I just want to discuss why you think voting matters get faked nigger
>>66710846
It doesnt. And the POTUS is a figurehead with no power. But let's keep blaming them for things, and endorsing them for their "promises".
>>66713192
Why does it matter less?
For example, Trump says he going to build a wall, and lots of people may vote for him because he pledged to build a wall. But when hes in office he can easily choose not to build a wall, or can choose to go against any number of things he pledged to do.
Doesn't mean its pointless to vote.
>>66708426
In early American history states were more like individual countries, and the flow of information was of course slower, most people probably didn't even know the people who may be running for president. So each states just voted for the electors who were qualified to make the decision and sent them to Washington to vote for the president. Often times back then they would just vote willy nilly for whoever they wanted. Now the electors always pledge to a party, and most states have laws to make sure they do.
>>66708426
Voting is necessary if just to be able to assume moral high ground when some faggot gets at the helm and proves worthless. The sweet realization that you didn't vote for him is good enough on its own, but you also get to mock all those other morons that did.
>>66710846
>>66709403
>>66708964
>>66711248
Electors in the general election MUST vote with the state, they didn't have to years ago but they do now.
>>66711922
You're confusing primary electors with general election ones.
>>66708426
Getting the most votes doesn't mean much when your country is bigger than some continents. If it were simply popular vote, all candidates would cater to cities and ignore the massive rural population and land they occupy. There's also the sovereignty issue since states are their own entity who give power to the federal government. They give their electors to whomever wins the state.
>>66713847
That seems to be the definition of pointless if it is possible for the people you put into office to go against your wishes than what good were your wishes what point was there to your vote if it can be so easily nullified
>>66714714
Ok that's nice and all but if the people who control your party are not on the same page as you or if they are working with the other party to make sure things stay relatively the same then what difference has that vote of yours made
>>66708426
Because the minimum electoral count for any state is three, voters in the least populous states have more power than those in the most populous states
>>66715686
>Electors in the general election MUST vote with the state
Only in some states which have specific laws requiring electors to vote for the pledge.
>>66716174
>>66716569
Think about the electors like senators. Senators may vote against your wishes, there is nothing preventing senators form voting completely opposite to what they promised. But they would never be elected again.
Same with electors. If a political party's electors were constantly voting against the party, the people would stop voting for that party (and the party would get the votes they wanted anyway). That's why parties make sure they only nominate people they know are pretty much die hard, lifetime loyalists to the party.
There are a ton of different ways electors are held to vote for the party's candidate, but the important "tyranny of the majority" failsafe is still there.
>>66715686
Please link a source for this info please because I don't think you are correct I will seek out this info myself but if you have some helpful links they would be appreciated
>>66716963
Right so if you are in a more populated area why would your vote count or matter
>>66708426
My vote never mattered because I live in Kansas. Voted in the primaries though since those are proportional.
>>66717193
If the majority can amend the constitution to anything they want then how is it fail safe
>>66717714
>If the majority can amend the constitution
No, they can't. A supermajority (2/3) of the house and senate can amend the constitution, or 2/3 of the state legislators, in both cases this is done by elected officials, not a direct popular vote.
Are these establishment guys really just afraid of losing their jobs? If they just hop on the train they'd be fine. The shit they believe is just so ridiculous... They can't be getting THAT much money, right? It's all 2spooky.
It can still be amended by that super majority
>>66718853
Yes, but its decided by elected officials, ether senators, representatives, or state legislators, not by direct popular vote.
The electoral college is a similar buffer between the popular vote and the presidency.
>>66718687
I don't think they are really afraid I think the people with the money with continue to make the real decisions and the voters will keep on voting thinking they are making a difference and they will continue to say things like well if we only had elected that other guy things would be better I hope trump gets it but I don't think he will and even if he does I think the establishment would still make him ineffective if he is even true to his words
>>66717233
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
>Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
>Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.
We're both wrong on electors. The parties choose primary and general electors, we never vote for them.
>On Election Day, the voters in each State choose the Electors by casting votes for the presidential candidate of their choice.
>The winning candidate in each State—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors—is awarded all of the State’s Electors.
You vote for president and those votes go to party electors who "officially" vote for the same person you did if your candidate gets the most votes.
>>66719695
Thank you for the info I will read up
No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
From http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
