You are stupid, by your logic, making less people happy is better. Also it doesn't matter what state they are in, why the -blam!- would it mean anything, it wouldn't be given up to a state, it would be given up to the majority, making more people happy. Are you -blam!-ing dumb or trolling?
English
-
Yeah, we should make californians happy but -blam!- 49 other states because they don't have the same population right? You are a special stupid
-
You are -blam!-ing stupid, it is more people, why the -blam!- does it matter which area of the country they are in, it is more people happy or less people happy, stop being a stupid bitch.
-
Bro if California only had a say all the other voices would be silenced.
-
Edited by Biv alt: 11/24/2016 5:37:25 PMYeah that would happen, but that's not what I'm saying at all
-
If it was popular vote the Democrates would win every time. Big cities are more often than not pretty liberal. The system gives the Republicans equal representation. And if in the future, some other big name party like the Republicans and Democrats comes up, all parties will have equal representation.
-
MAKING LESS PEOPLE HAPPY? YES, THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
-
Going by your logic that majority rule should always win, let me give you a a real world example of why that's bad. Back in 2008, here in California, the majority ruled that same-sex couples shouldn't have their marriages recognized. Tell me, is that fair? Now let's expand it to the entire country. If the majority of the people in this country decided gays shouldn't have the right to marry, would you be OK with that?
-
This might shock you, but in that scenario yes. I believe Culture issues should be dealt with by majority. Legal and Fiscal issues are another story
-
I don't think oppressing a group of people just because the majority says so is OK. I mean, the majority once thought slavery was OK, but we know it's not. Everyone should have the same rights and be treated equally, at least within the eyes of the law. The majority should never have the power to oppress any group for any reason.
-
DAMN WE SHOULD OF BANNED GAY MARRIAGE, thanks Obama
-
There's some things that majority rule isn't good for, but electing the leader of your country, that should need majority rule.
-
True, but everyone should have representation when it comes to electing our President. As has already been stated, if we went by majority rule, only the big cities would have a say every single time. And since big cities tend to all lean to one side of a political ideology, the rest of the nation would be ignored, which would lead to millions of people being unhappy. Far more than you would think. Take our current election for example. If Hillary had won, [i]only[/i] those people that voted for her would be happy. Which, sure, it's a lot, but then we have the millions who voted for Trump who would be unhappy, plus the untold millions that didn't vote or voted for someone else. All together make up more than the amount who would be happy if Hillary won.
-
Yes, but if you make the majority unhappy, that is worse than making the minority happy. Also, more people voted for Hillary than Trump, Yet he won by that much, that is too much while losing the majority vote, they should fix it a little bit, like a gain of points for the actual popular vote. And how would you know the ones who didn't vote, supported Trump, it was 2 bad choices, the ones who showed their opinion of the 2, the majority were for Hillary, if they didn't vote they shouldn't be more unhappy if the other choice won, because they didn't show an opinion.
-
Let's use this example: let's say any states unhappy about who got elected left the US. That means that if Hillary got elected by popular vote, that would mean less than half the country would still exist. Would it survive? 80%+ of the farming/food producing states were red. Seems like it would be a bit of a problem if they all decided to leave.
-
I mean, at one point in time, a lot of people wanted schools segregated and when that was broken America got pissed. A lot of shit happened after that but the point is that the majority of America doesn't always want what's best for America.
-
No it's not. With the electoral college it makes it much harder for the system to be cheated. Thousands if not that, a few million dead people will "vote" every election. If it was the popular vote than it would count more because more points (you get it). Because you only win a certain amount of points for each state you win, it makes it much more difficult to cheat the system.
-
Yes, that's what you are saying, you want less people to be happy, you are in denial, no one is that stupid, I don't have much faith in humanity, but I have enough to think you are faking this.
-
Then I want to see you put up a better argument other than your, "LESS PEOPLE ARE HAPPY!" BS. Try.
-
Go -blam!- yourself, get a counter argument first, I don't need a different argument, that is an insanely strong and obvious argument.
-
You know that you can't disprovee or come even remotely close to beating me. Now are you going to at least try?
-
I'm beating you by -blam!-ing miles. You have yet to put up an argument or counter argument, you have one yet? I'll wait, I just don't want fluff filled replies anymore, I want a challenge, this is boring.
-
I see you're not responding because you know you have been beaten.
-
HAHA, when?
-
YOU DIDNT EVEN PUT UP AN ARGUEMENT YOU IDIOT. YOU JAVE NO PROOF THAT PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY AND YOU HAVE NOYHIMG OTHER THAN THAT. I STATED MULTIPLE WAYS HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS MORE FAIR. HOW CAN YOU JUDGE THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY IF 40%OF THE US POPULATION DIDNT EVEN VOTE. THATS YOUR S***Y ARGUEMENT BLOWN OIT OF THE WATER IN ONE SENTENCE. YOUR TOO SCARED TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG.
-
Lol why argue with a kid who doesn't even know how to say fuсk on the forums?