Upload
Login or register

vaginalentry

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:12/16/2010
Last Login:12/04/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#4049
Highest Content Rank:#6522
Highest Comment Rank:#4064
Content Thumbs: 460 total,  561 ,  101
Comment Thumbs: 2008 total,  2337 ,  329
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 46 Content: Sammich eater → Level 47 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:2
Content Views:29216
Times Content Favorited:17 times
Total Comments Made:851
FJ Points:2459
Favorite Tags: game (4) | the (4) | other (2)

latest user's comments

#136 - That shouldn't happen though, there is no reason that a state …  [+] (3 replies) 11/12/2016 on Why it's important -1
#173 - anon (11/12/2016) [-]
there is no state with only 10k

the electoral college was implemented to prevent a radical majority rule
User avatar
#178 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Also, why would we implement something to prevent a large majority rule? Isn't that the point of a democracy? If 60% of people want something just because they occupy a vastly smaller area of the country doesn't mean the should have the same say as the 40% that makes up the way larger area
User avatar
#176 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Well yea no shit it's an example my point is that states with way more people are under represented in the college because one vote will count for thousands of more citizens than in another, this is why things like vote trading, which could've nearly cost trump the election if it were more widespread.
#135 - This map is stating look how much more gray there is than blue…  [+] (3 replies) 11/12/2016 on Why it's important 0
User avatar
#137 - trolljunkusa (11/12/2016) [-]
Well you do understand that the popular vote can override the electoral college? It overrides in case of situations where you can win only like 60 electoral votes but still win the popular vote. It's a self correcting system that we've used for over 100 years, and never have we had any issues with it till people stopped getting their way
User avatar
#139 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Because, in LAW the electoral college is what elects the president, not the popular vote. If neither candidate got 270 EC votes then the senate decides the VP and Pres
User avatar
#138 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Find me one instance in our history where the electoral college is overridden by the popular vote.
#133 - The votes are based in population yes, they are not dictated t…  [+] (5 replies) 11/12/2016 on Why it's important 0
User avatar
#134 - trolljunkusa (11/12/2016) [-]
Well every state needs to have 3 electoral votes, i.e. Rhode Island. That's why certain states like ohio lose some.
User avatar
#136 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
That shouldn't happen though, there is no reason that a state with 10,000 people should be guaranteed 3 votes if there is a state with 100000 that only gets like 5. That makes the votes of the people in the state with 3 count for way fuckiing more than the other because they have way fewer people despite having only 2 less college votes
#173 - anon (11/12/2016) [-]
there is no state with only 10k

the electoral college was implemented to prevent a radical majority rule
User avatar
#178 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Also, why would we implement something to prevent a large majority rule? Isn't that the point of a democracy? If 60% of people want something just because they occupy a vastly smaller area of the country doesn't mean the should have the same say as the 40% that makes up the way larger area
User avatar
#176 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Well yea no shit it's an example my point is that states with way more people are under represented in the college because one vote will count for thousands of more citizens than in another, this is why things like vote trading, which could've nearly cost trump the election if it were more widespread.
#130 - Yea so why should the vast needs of the people with more land …  [+] (49 replies) 11/12/2016 on Why it's important 0
#181 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
It's important because different regions of the country want and desire different things. So if it was a pure democracy anybody running for president would focus on only the most important areas of the country and the grey areas would be forgotten. Why should they go to all the states in the grey area and try to help everyone when they could focus on California and New York to receive the same effect?
User avatar
#187 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
With the electoral college in place they focus 75% of their campaign in 15% of the country because they maximize the electoral college votes per person in those areas and avoid ones where they can safely bet they already have votes, and those where one persons vote means way less than somewhere like ohio the last couple of elections
User avatar
#185 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
The map even states it is showing half of the population in two colors, just because the college is gone doesn't mean half the population suddenly gets thrown out the window, they are still half the fucking population
User avatar
#184 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
So how on earth does having one persons vote count for more than another's even that out. Why do you think that without the electoral college the grey areas would be forgotten about entirely? they still have their votes, all the electoral college does is give certain people votes more weight than others
#196 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
You have to remember that each state has different values, different people and different backgrounds. Saying that the people elected and the policies chosen should be decided by a select few demographics is wrong.
User avatar
#200 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
This is a system in place for only the president of the country though it isn't making decisions for issues that would drastically impact one state differently than another
#205 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
That's why I said people elected AND policies chosen. And for the most part things that only effect one state are generally voted for in state law not federal. This is more about things that effect the nation as a whole. The issue here is that these small areas of the country with a lot of people completely negate multiple states. Which silences many different demographics of Americans. The people in the grey's vote shouldn't be worth more because of how much land they have it should be worth more because they don't have the population to contend with other places. And before you say "then they need more people" think about the areas with vast farmland where the country as a whole gets most of its food from. Where its not really even possible to build cities or bigger communities. Or where the environment is so hostile that its not really possible to wire utilities and sewer systems there for a big city. So then should the views of our farmers be less important than the views of the millennial college students of New York just because they live in an area that isn't densely populated?
User avatar
#208 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
That still isn't justification for certain parts of the population to have a larger say in who becomes the president of this country though
#210 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
You are misunderstanding, they don't have a LARGER say they have an EQUAL say. It doesn't place bigger states with less population above smaller states with more population, it places them on equal ground.
User avatar
#211 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
HOLY SHIT yes they do, If i am from california because of the immense population there are way more people per electoral college vote, so if my one vote barely influences one vote why should someone elses have a larger impact on one vote
#214 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
So you're saying that a couple counties of California should decide on the leader for the entire nation, yea that makes sense. If that was the way things worked then the whole country would be upset except for specific counties of specific states. There is no reason why entire states of people should be ignored because of a few dense areas voted against them.
User avatar
#215 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
No what I am saying is the majority of the population should decide the president, like an actual fucking democracy, who gives a shit if they are living in the same area the point of a democracy is everyone has the same say not some people have more of a say because they live in a less densely populated area
#219 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
When you have a country as big as the united states a classic true democracy doesn't work. It just doesn't. The people get more and more divided. You are not acknowledging the fact that entire areas of the country will be ignored because they don't have enough voters to matter.
User avatar
#221 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
why do you think that because a president is elected by a majority, that they are going to completely ignote the "minority" (in a pres election its still like 48% of the country mind you)
#226 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
Okay so a President makes promises to get votes. He (or she) has values that influences people to vote for them. If a candidate wants to get elected then they have to appease the voters. Now if certain areas have large populations in small areas then they make promises or say their values are values that are important to those people. Now they spend their term doing the things they said they were going to, or they don't. If they don't they might not get re-elected. So if more of the population is in denser areas and all hold the same values. It's just basic knowledge that candidates will always gravitate towards those areas to get their votes because there are more people. Which means those values will naturally become more and more pronounced as more and more people get elected because of those views. Now the rest of the country feels aggrieved because no matter what they do their views don't get addressed.
User avatar
#231 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Not only that, but the college makes it so that if you vote for someone who isn't highly liked in your state your vote will count for literally nothing. Like right now i'm in CO if i voted for trump my vote would literally mean fuck all because the majority of my state wanted hillary so she got all of the votes for my state
User avatar
#228 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
You keep speaking as if the other part of the country is so much more important, but they are still half of the population, why should the half that live in less dense areas get more of a say than the half that live in dense areas?
#234 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
They aren't MORE important but they are JUST as important. Because if a candidate can campaign in 11 states, and win those 11 states they would be guaranteed the win. Why would somebody choose to expend the energy to campaign in 30+ states when they can choose 11 and guarantee the win. While yes the grey area is the other 50% of the population you also have to remember that the blue isn't for FULL states it is only for counties, so if a candidate is campaigning in one of those states and wins the majority in just one more county than showed. They become president.
User avatar
#239 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
They are more important, what do you not understand about that there is like highschool math able to explain that, And it should be that way, just because there are more people in 11 states doesn't mean that because they campaign there they are going to get all their votes, they still have to invest in the other ares they cant just ignore half the population because no sane adviser or candidate is going to assume they will win every single vote in a certain area
#242 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
but they don't HAVE to win every vote. I'm not going to be bother to do the math but if it was a pure democracy if you win most of the votes in a few states you win the election. And that's simply how it is.

"The Electoral College protects and empowers minorities. Candidates might ignore a small minority in a national election. But groups concentrated in specific areas can have a significant influence in those states. By forcing candidates to compete for states rather than for individual votes, the Electoral College system gives minorities a stronger voice."

"The Electoral College forces candidates to pay attention to all voters. They can’t just focus on a few big cities. They have to win entire states, and lots of ‘em."

that's why it's important. because entire demographics of people would be totally ignored because they don't have enough people to influence an election. and that is a complete fact. If you are trying to dispute that then you're a fucking mentalist. ALSO voter fraud is more destructive in a "true" democracy. It just doesn't work. Countless civilizations have fallen because of the division that a true democracy creates between different demographics of people. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to somebody who has brain damage any more. Have fun with the electoral college its here to stay because an amendment can only be passed on the constitution with the support of the small states that you are so desperate to silence.
User avatar
#241 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
thats what im trying to say, the electoral college makes these votes more important than others because they live in a more spread out area and that is just flat out unfair to the other half of the population. On top of that it skews votes on a state by state basis, and forces a two party system in which only two main parties ever have a chance because no college member is ever going to vote 3rd party
User avatar
#218 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
It's not like the president is going to make decisions that just completely disregard the half of the population that isnt living in these dense areas, its just shifting the votes into the power of individual people and not based off of population desnity
User avatar
#212 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
If the electoral college had one vote per ever so many people it would be even but its not at all, if it were california would have like 90 electoral college votes
User avatar
#209 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
The issue with the electoarl college is it gives certain people MORE of a say on who the president is just because of where they live, that should not be the case in an actual democracy. In this version large portions of the population are being discounted because they live in dense areas
#191 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
Because a candidate only has to pander to the needs of a small percent of the country (in terms of land not population). Let's take immigration as a hypothetical example. If the blue areas are against stricter immigration but the whole rest of the country is for it all the person has to do is campaign in the blue areas and then there's a very strong chance that they would win. Now the country as a whole has a policy that effects the entire country which was decided by small areas of the population. The electoral college is a system that gives each state equal weight. Look at it this way. If New York, votes for a candidate who wants less immigration, and that candidate wins. Then it might REALLY effect Texas, so now the entire state of Texas has to deal with it because a couple counties in New York voted against them. Even though there were more people, a couple counties shouldn't be worth more than a full state.
User avatar
#195 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Thats true but that isn't the point of a democracy, a democracy is in principle decided by the majority of the population, because if the majority of the population is in favor of something, like stricter immigration, why should they have less of a say just because they occupy less of the country?
User avatar
#198 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
if something is so impactful to just one state it should be decided by the state, this is the electoral college it is in place ONLY FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
#206 - randomzdude (11/12/2016) [-]
Right but presidential candidates campaign with goals in mind. Promises they make in exchange for votes. And if they make promises that only cater to one group of people then the rest of the country slowly gets forgotten.
#171 - xxsikoticxx (11/12/2016) [-]
Keep in mind that this system was made a long ass time ago before the internet and television. This system was to stop candidates from literally only going to the cities to campaign and actually give a shit about the opinion of those outside the cities. Otherwise politicians would just campaign in cities since that is what is the most effective use of time. Whether or not this has been outdated by television and internet, I don't know.
User avatar
#175 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Oh I know it was made a long time ago, and I believe it served a much better purpose then, because a large chunk of the population literally could not get somewhere to vote, the rural or frontier peoples, so the college was established to give them a say, but now when you can vote from you ass in a couch It's outdated
#180 - xxsikoticxx (11/12/2016) [-]
It's also getting their actual issues addressed as well. Back then if there wasn't an electoral college then people not in cities would literally not be heard. Now it is similar except instead of not being heard, the fear is that they would just be ignored now that roughly half the population live in cities, as democrats more than often tend to do... but idk.
User avatar
#182 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Well yea they needed representation, that's what I said, but in today's society how would they be ignored, everyone has access to voting so it doesn't make any sense that one persons vote should be worth more than another just because they live in a certain area
#222 - xxsikoticxx (11/12/2016) [-]
>>#101 explained it better than I can.
User avatar
#227 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Also the other is just as plausible in that scenario, if the gray half had just over the majority, which is very possible seeing as how it is HALF THE FUCKING POPULATION, then they could vote in someone who could ban urban factories
User avatar
#225 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Yea but now your making the assumption that the majority of people in this country would elect a president that would make a change so shitty that it would fuck over the other half of the population, you also forget its not like the president can just go hey no more agriculture i ban that fuck all you farmers
#244 - xxsikoticxx (11/12/2016) [-]
I don't know how to explain it any differently, oh well. Either way third parties would not be in a better state than they are now if it was popular vote, they would still need more than the other candidates to get elected. The only way to get third parties to work is to get congressional seats be directly proportional to popular vote, otherwise we are stuck with a two party system since you still need a majority of your district's vote to be elected to congress.
User avatar
#132 - trolljunkusa (11/12/2016) [-]
Electoral votes are based on population, not land
User avatar
#135 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
This map is stating look how much more gray there is than blue! why should the area of space dictate they get more votes if half the population lives in the blue then they should have exactly as much say as the half that lives in the gray which takes up more space
User avatar
#137 - trolljunkusa (11/12/2016) [-]
Well you do understand that the popular vote can override the electoral college? It overrides in case of situations where you can win only like 60 electoral votes but still win the popular vote. It's a self correcting system that we've used for over 100 years, and never have we had any issues with it till people stopped getting their way
User avatar
#139 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Because, in LAW the electoral college is what elects the president, not the popular vote. If neither candidate got 270 EC votes then the senate decides the VP and Pres
User avatar
#138 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Find me one instance in our history where the electoral college is overridden by the popular vote.
User avatar
#133 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
The votes are based in population yes, they are not dictated though. Also the states that have higher populations have way less electoral college votes than they should if every state had an even ratio of people to college votes
User avatar
#134 - trolljunkusa (11/12/2016) [-]
Well every state needs to have 3 electoral votes, i.e. Rhode Island. That's why certain states like ohio lose some.
User avatar
#136 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
That shouldn't happen though, there is no reason that a state with 10,000 people should be guaranteed 3 votes if there is a state with 100000 that only gets like 5. That makes the votes of the people in the state with 3 count for way fuckiing more than the other because they have way fewer people despite having only 2 less college votes
#173 - anon (11/12/2016) [-]
there is no state with only 10k

the electoral college was implemented to prevent a radical majority rule
User avatar
#178 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Also, why would we implement something to prevent a large majority rule? Isn't that the point of a democracy? If 60% of people want something just because they occupy a vastly smaller area of the country doesn't mean the should have the same say as the 40% that makes up the way larger area
User avatar
#176 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Well yea no shit it's an example my point is that states with way more people are under represented in the college because one vote will count for thousands of more citizens than in another, this is why things like vote trading, which could've nearly cost trump the election if it were more widespread.
User avatar
#131 - vaginalentry (11/12/2016) [-]
Also the electoral college forces a two party system vastly decreasing the opportunity for multiple quality candidates
#145 - Wait didn't she already make a concession speech though? Woul…  [+] (1 reply) 11/11/2016 on the war isn't over yet +1
User avatar
#147 - zomaru (11/11/2016) [-]
Yes
But that's logic
And these are Liberals
#150 - And she lost to a black guy  [+] (1 reply) 11/10/2016 on I feel kinda bad for... +2
User avatar
#193 - anonymousmkiii (11/10/2016) [-]
and an orange guy now...whats next?