tell me about how America's lack of gun laws increase violence when you're in a country with more gun laws and a higher death rate.

Relevant and on the point, as usual.


Last time I checked France had a much lower murder and gun murder rate than the United States.

Plus I'm sure you know that problems are the absolute majority of times caused by a big and diverse number of variables. It's super easy, and probably dumb, to look at gun laws and then violence, pick two examples that defend your idea and draw conclusions out of it. And it's a thing I'm affraid you have a huge tendency to do.

Instead of a simple MSGB equation Change of the number of guns = More/Less violence, you really should look more at a Guns+Who owns the guns+General Population Education+Economic Segregation+Country Stability+Quality of the police+Culture+(...) = Violence level of a country.

No one factor explains a consequence. Got economy, violence and stupid electoral systems alike.


As for the electoral college, I get the points to defend it, but it's still an archaic system. Small states are already over represented in the senate, and the electoral college sure can and often gets the right candidate, but a 5% failure rare when you're choosing a president is rather alarming. Bush 2 coming to power has all to do with the electoral college getting it wrong. Perhaps America would have stayed out of Irak if Al Gore had been president, ISIS wouldn't be a threat and wouldnt be getting the highest in flux of refugees since WW2. And maybe Obama wouldn't have become president, or Hillary for a fact, relations with Russia would have been better, Lybia wouldn't be in chaos and the hole world wouldn't be laughing at the big joke that this election is.

Well lots of ifs, and as I said earlier often one consequence can't be drawn out of only one change of variable, but all of them were made possible by a electoral college failure.

Edited 11/1/2016 11:07:24

but a 5% failure rare when you're choosing a president is rather alarming.

The thing is though, it's not a "failure". Al Gore is a classical example of what I was describing about failing to appeal to a wide base of support. Just take a look at his county level results:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/2000prescountymap2.PNG

@Teamguns, reminds me of similar statement: X isn't perfect, but its the best we got.

We would need to come up with a better system than the electoral college to complain about its 5% failure rate you quoted.

Also, are you trying to say that the electoral college fails when we fail to get someone good in office? It seems like a better argument is that the electoral college fails when the candidate elected doesn't represent the will of the people. But then the follow on question is, what really is the will of the people and how would you measure that?

Yea it's probably hard to find a perfect system. Even direct democracy has numerous flaws...

I think that a good system of electing representatives is the one where you rank the candidates from best to worse and take the one most people are satisfied with. This system has the benefit of 3rd party voting not hiting the chances of the major candidate you prefer to win, and raises the chances of them as well. Under this system we could have dozens of candidates running and you voting for them without fearing that Trump or Hillary get elected, as your vote ends getting redirected to them as we take out of the equation small candidates. And if the major two candidates are very hated like this year, we could have all the votes against them redirected to a third candidate, which could well up end with him getting elected.

And the electoral college could be partially fixed if you attributed votes proportionaly so that votes in deeply red or blue states matter for candidates and force them to make 50 states campaigns. This would also greatly reduce chances of the electoral college fucking up too.

Edited 11/1/2016 17:06:46

Monarchy. Democracy is retarded because 51% of the population can vote themselves the money of the other 49%

Democracy isn't always best. Only the sane should vote

Yea it's probably hard to find a perfect system.

More of impossible to find a perfect system.

Relevant and on the point, as usual.

It was a joke you [I insulted you here and I feel like it was excessive]. I know sarcasm is essentially impossible through text though, and joking is almost as hard, so sorry.

Edited 11/1/2016 21:19:47

Eh I didn't take it as an insult. Took it more like your usual random blabing xD

The thing is though, it's not a "failure". Al Gore is a classical example of what I was describing about failing to appeal to a wide base of support. Just take a look at his county level results:

What does this matter? Last I checked the president was supposed to represent the people, not the land.

It matters because the president is supposed to be a nationally elected official. If he appeals to voters from a narrow geographic base, as al gore did, it's likely that he will lose, whether or not he won the national popular vote.

Also, can you reference a quote from the constitution that says the president is supposed to represent the people? Originally, electors weren't even appointed by popular vote, they were appointed by state legislatures.

What does this matter? Last I checked the president was supposed to represent the people, not the land.

kekekekekekekekekek why should some poor person with no property be valued as much as someone with 10000 acres and a billion dollars

rich scumbag GeneralPE

kekekekekek he emplyed you, your family, and your every friend belgian

why should some poor person with no property be valued as much as someone with 10000 acres and a billion dollars

Empty bellies have no ears.

Boom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-state-electors-on-the-fence-about-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

fuck yah that would be awesome

That's not all. Very recently Baoky Vu , a republican elector from Georgia who balked on whether to support Donald Trump has resigned today says Reblican spokesman Ryan Mahoney. Vu had put out a statement in August saying that he cannot bring himself to vote for Trump in the November general election. And he might not have voted for Trump as a member of the electoral college, either. He suggested a write-in candidate but now he changed his mind and has resigned after probably being put under pressure by the Republican Party.

j'ai vu Vu!

déjà vu?

Edited 11/7/2016 17:41:39