The Democrats’ Plan to Destroy Our Electoral System

a reply to: Bassago

That said, electing the POTUS by popular vote will simply lead to mob-democracy. People will vote in whoever gives them the free stuff. Bad idea. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And there is a fair share of people that will argue that we have that now... That obama won because he gives more free stuff. I am sure that has been mentioned a few times on ATS and about plenty of presidents before him.
If every ones vote isl equal then why not elect based off the popular vote?

lol, i never understood the EC vote.

so cali has 55 votes, and beezer's state has 2, how does that even out?

and who are these meatballs that get to vote?

doesn't it sound fishy to anyone? i mean, heck, me and 2 others could over turn a popular vote in the state?

if one of the three didn't agree, what happens? 2-1?

why even have a citizen/popular vote? or even an EC vote?

maybe i was out sick when we went over that in social studies, 100 years ago. lol!

get rid of the EC vote and make people prove who they are to vote, AT THE BOOTHS!

a reply to: xuenchen

lol, i still don't get it!

so 1 party can sweep an election with 600 people/votes? 300?

wtf is that?

stupidest thing i keep hearing about. lol!!

a reply to: Bilk22

That does seem to be the problem people don't realize when the Electoral College is kinda, sorta, but never very well explained by the MSM... It was something written right into our core documents and needs to be there for just the reason you say.

If the President is elected by popular vote and we go by the 2012 vote totals for how many bothered to even get up and show up to bother? The populations of just over a dozen of our largest cities would slam dunk the outcome without any question. It's how 2012 did see multiple states go where area of the state was one way, but the state actually carried a vote the other. States do work on popular votes and so a major city or two or three already do decide whole state population's intentions.....which often short changes both sides, depending on the state.

Nationally? Oh.. I agree. the coasts will elect the President. No one else need bother voting, since math won't allow it to matter, even if everything else did work as intended.

In Calif the democrats hold the big cities.
Much of the rural areas vote GOP.

With the Electoral College the votes for the GOP are just about worthless.
Without the Electoral College all the rural votes for the GOP when added to other states votes will mean something.

Eliminating the Electoral College could cause the vote to go ether way.
And is likely to cause the democrats big problems in the future.

People are starting to get wise to the Democrats and Obama.
And i see big changes coming.

The title should be changed to the elites plan to destroy our electoral system no doubt to consolidate more power for they and their cronies.

Policy makers are partisan blind when it comes to catering to their donors and they not listen to the public either.

Of course democrats would like "popular vote". Its what egalitarianism is all about. Everyone, from the walrus welfare leech to the trained doctor, everyone is equal and should have exactly the same money, same self-esteem, same political power, same standing.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I fail to see the problem here....

The president should be elected by popular vote.

We have nothing else in our system that works that way.

So you're fine with the idea that the majority of states could be trumped because a handful of states with larger populations (think NY, CA, FL and pretty much the states that have voted for this POS) can easily call the election and render all other states votes meaningless.

My understanding of the popular vote is the count of the candidate with the most votes form all states combined...
Not sure how a state gets trumped in that sense.

You don't see how? Read Wrabbit's post for an explanation. Large cites will determine the elections. Why do you think the libs want to change the rules? For equity and fairness? We'll no longer be a democratic republic. We'll be a pure democracy. They want to do this in Congress too. They already did this in the Senate. The democratic party is tearing this nation down bit by bit. I hope they all rot in hell.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Under this agreement, your state would award its electors to the candidate winning the most votes nationally — even if a majority of your state’s residents voted for a different candidate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I fail to see the problem here....

The president should be elected by popular vote.

Each candidate on any ballot anywhere needs a box next to their name; no-confidence in candidate, so we can end their reign as an untouchable sociopath wrecking our quality of life, liberty, and the attainment of prosperity-for all.

If a candidate receives .01 percent no-confidence votes, their political career ends. Simple?

It feels like I'm gonna have to run for congress in order to get such a law passed, and I'd be the first one having a failed political career- if I live to see the day...

a reply to: beezzer

What is it with progressives?

They don't like the Constitution.
They don't like the Bill of Rights.
They don't like the electoral process. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

None of that is true.

They don't like corruption or oligarchies or rigged voting.
Period.