Why aren't the pre-elections all on the same day, or the same week at least? Seems kinda undemocratic.
So candidates can be in as many states as they can while they campaign.
Why do we have an electoral college? Shit's retarded.
cuz americans are fucking retarded
Why do we have a postal office? Shit's outdated.
>>67627736
To make it so you don't have to just campaign in LA, Miami, Chicago, New York and Houston.
If there was no college and everything was directly proportional to population than California would be worth more than it already is and places like Idaho and Montana would be worth even less.
>>67628214
As it should be. Why should a million retards in Idaho be worth the same as 5 million retards in NY?
>>67627044
German cuck faggot, shut the fuck up
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/emperor-trump
>>67628273
Because the parties to the Constitution were the States and it is the States that elect the president.
>>67627736
Because America is a coalition of states.
>>67628273
Being a state used to mean something before we got the strong federal government we have now, they were more like mini-countries
>>67628214
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
Electoral college is retarded AF
>>67627044
Because if they were, candidates would only campaign in the big media market areas. Los Angeles. New York. Washington DC. Chicago. Atlanta. Et Cetera. Thus, those areas (heavily urban, heavily democrat) would always just decide every election, and the vast majority of voters everywhere else would just get screwed. Their votes wouldn't count at all.
Simultaneously, the wealthiest or best fund raising candidates would have a huge advantage, since competing in those markets is much more expensive. The outsider candidates would be at a strong disadvantage. Big money manipulating politics is already a difficult thing to deal with. The primary system as it exists works to counteract that effect by giving small states with small media markets an advantage since they tend to hold primaries earlier than the bigger states.
>>67629930
Says that gleeful frog from bulgaria.
>>67627044
It's absolutely rubbish and rigged.
The winner-take-all concept, what a fucking load of crap
>>67630200
Not all states are winner take all (which, btw, most Americans believe is a more democratic concept than proportional representation).
If you want to complain about something, Pierre, you should complain about what the democrats call "superdelegates," or the republicans call "unpledged delegates." Those guys aren't actually voted for at all. They're members of the party elite. They vote the way the party tells them to vote. They exist on purpose to prevent voters from picking candidates that the party bosses don't like.
And oh! Oh my! Look at that! Sacred blue! Hildebeest has ALL the superdelegates! Well I am just shocked. Shocked, I say!
Because the states get to choose their own dates.
>>67627044
It's just a game, no different than any sold by Hasbro or Parker Bros.
You want a real system of governance, look at New Zealand, look at Australia. America's is just a game.
>>67632195
Exactly. Which is why New Zealand is a world hegemon.
>>67629930
One thing this guy is dumb about is that at the part talking about cities he uses the population sizes of the immediate city borders. Anyone who's lived in these kinds of places knows how silly this is.
The county and metropolitan areas for these places are A LOT bigger in population size and they're only 10-15 minutes away usually. LA county has over 10 million people and it's metropolitan population is about 12 million. Just by doing some quick math you can see that those ten places he says only take up 8 % of the population, nearly take up a quarter.
He then goes on to say if you add the next 90 cities you only get 20% of the population. I don't know where the fuck this guy thinks people are living.
>>67630619
When was the last time somebody not chosen by these superdelegates actually won anything? Has it ever happened?
>>67628273
>American hating on the UNITED STATES
I'm on the other side of the Atlantic and I'm still mad.
>>67632704
2008. Hillary had all the superdelegates that time. At first anyway.
But here's the bitch about them. They understand that going against popular opinion is bad for the party. So, for instance, in that election when it was clear that Obama had way more support than Hillary, they all jumped ship. And the Clintons were LIVID. That's how they worked out the backroom deal that made her Secretary of State.
That's the sausage making of American politics.
Another important thing to understand about our system is that the parties are not part of the government. They don't have to follow voting laws. They're private corporations. They make their own rules, and they're only accountable to their own membership. They can change the rules at any time. They can break their own rules at any time. It would be suicidal for them to do so, but they can.
>>67632582
That's true but you're also underestimating it aswell
There are 53 Metropolitan areas with populations above 1 million and they make up 55.81% of the US population, ergo 44.19% live in metro areas with populations below 1 million, and 14.5% live in country towns with populations below 50k
>>67633339
Can't your legislature just pass some laws governing how the parties have to operate? Would that not be accepted in America because of muh freedom, or is that simply impossible because the parties themselves can prevent such laws getting through?
>>67633757
That's an interesting question. If such a law were attempted, I guarantee it would face challenges in court under first amendment grounds. Freedom of association is a guaranteed right. It protects street gangs, it would also protect political parties.
But you raise another interesting point. The two party system exists because of implicit collusion between the parties to exclude any potential challenge to their power structure. That's why third parties have no influence here the way they do in Europe. It's also why there's so much hostility to the Tea Party, which wasn't even a party, but a grass routs populist movement that challenged the elites. It's also why there's so much opposition to Donald Trump (and Sanders, for that matter). That's not to say changing the law in that regard is impossible, but rather extremely impractical.
Beyond that, there would have to be some political impetus to change the law. Why would a legislature full of members that only got impaneled because they learned how to navigate the party system have any motive to change that system? They made it! The only people who would want to change such a system are weeded out by it.
Hence the old yippie slogan: "you can't use the system to change the system."
>>67634136
Interesting but depressing political climate you have there. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on these nuances for me, anon.
>>67634387
So tell me about the Liberalistene party. Are they a joke or do they have a snowball's chance in hell?
>>67627688
>So candidates can be in as many states as they can
What for ? All those states are in the same country. If you want to visit a specific place, go there before the vote. Just decide about a single month of campaining, candidates decide their priorities and you can see where they stand.
Instead, you have candidates pandering to every single states, making false promises and flip-flopping when different states have different opinions.
>>67628273
>UNITED states
>>67627044
>Seems kinda undemocratic.
Good, America isn't a democracy.
>>67627736
Electoral college is very based, and a necessity.
>>67634591
You don't understand. The United States is a VERY big place. Texas alone is larger than all of France.
>>67634864
So ? They don't have TV in Texas ?
>>67634933
Sure. But they also have television stations in every city. And those stations don't exist in, say, New York. So if a candidate airs an ad in New York, usually the people in Galveston won't see it.
And anyway, people are suspicious of television ads. Rightfully so, I think. Speaking in person sways more voters.
>>67635067
>if a candidate airs an ad in New York, usually the people in Galveston won't see it.
You don't have to be in Galveston to run an add in Galveston.
> people are suspicious of television ads
then why 90% of campaign money goes there ?
>>67635211
No, but spending on ads in New York influences more voters than ads in Galveston because more voters live in New York. But realistically, the majority of ad revenue wouldn't be spent on either of those cities, but in places like Cincinnati, Pensacola, or Boise.
The reason lots of money is spent on ads is that they're expensive, and they're an easy thing to dump tons of dollars into for marginal gains. Realistically, most people decided who they wanted to vote for when they were 10 years old listening to their parents' politics. Very few actual voters are influenced by those ads. It just so happens that those few people are very important.
And they also tend to be very stupid.
