ThatIrishSOB Posted November 20, 2016 Author Posted November 20, 2016 please give me your own words and explain why having only 20% of the vote actually have an effect is better than the whole population being heard. You literally just made that 20% statistic up, you twat.
Team Cape Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 You literally just made that 20% statistic up, you twat. fairvote 2014 citation look back at it. sit lol. also, respond to all the shit i said before. fairvote gave a few reasons: 1. swing states 2. 'purple' states (e.g. millions of republican votes are lost each year because california goes democrat & millions of democrat votes are lost each year because texas goes republican) 3. faulty electoral voting 4. some votes counting for up to 3x more than others nah 20% of the population should definitely control the election tho. u got a good system there. lmao gg tho
ThatIrishSOB Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 fairvote 2014 citation look back at it. sit lol. also, respond to all the shit i said before. fairvote gave a few reasons: 1. swing states 2. 'purple' states (e.g. millions of republican votes are lost each year because california goes democrat & millions of democrat votes are lost each year because texas goes republican) 3. faulty electoral voting 4. some votes counting for up to 3x more than others nah 20% of the population should definitely control the election tho. u got a good system there. lmao gg tho "lmao gg tho" hu hu pwned nah you've proved nothing other than that you're an insufferable cunt 1. Swing states would be worse without the electoral college. Fewer states would have more of a say over who becomes president. 2. There's no ability to predict that in a popular vote election, voter turnout would improve. That's literally just conjecture. 3. The electoral college prevents fraud in one precinct from affecting the whole election as well as as provides representation for all sections of the country. 4. Votes counting for up to 3x more than others balances out when you consider state populations. They weigh more than others to put states with lower populations (Wyoming) on an equal playing field with states with bigger populations (California) Since you clearly don't wanna absorb anything I've said, look at this map: This is the map of this election. You telling me Hillary should have won?
