It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What if your candidate wins the popular vote, but is not made President?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:20 AM
a reply to: tadaman

I don't support Trump, I think he's an idiot. However, citizens of the U.S., no matter if they support Trump or don't support Trump should be outraged! It clearly shows the party establishment is removing the rights of the people to choose who they want to elect as president. It's about time the voice of the American people is heard and the nominating convention process with it's rigged delegates is scraped.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:22 AM
a reply to: WeRpeons

We should all just write in a candidate we start choosing NOW for next election.

Look for average people with good disposition, who are trust worthy, unaffiliated and politically debt free.

Who would give someone like that a chance? ANYONE?

Is there no one like that in the ENTIRE US?

Why not them?

edit on 3 8 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:26 AM
a reply to: [post=20459700] tadaman: The electoral college usually reflects the popular vote to a significant degree and usually enough not to cause such a huge difference that it would result in wide spread riots or revolt. The closer the popular vote, the closer the final total will be in the electoral college unless a third party candidate prevents either major candidate from getting the necessary electoral majority needed to become President. Then the House of representatives decides who is president.

In the very rare case as described above, there could be potential uprising and riots against the government if one of the candidates was very popular and got more popular votes than any other candidate and the people sensed that their choice was somehow cheated out of the presidency by what they deemed a corrupt electoral system. In one early 19th century election, a very populist message was delivered during the campaign by Andrew Jackson and "Old Hickory" won the most popular votes but wasn't elected President because no candidate running reached the required electoral college total needed to win the presidency. The House of Representatives then choose someone other than Jackson to be president and there was a near riot by the people who felt they had bee cheated out of the favored Jackson ( who subsequently went on to win the next election and became President after all).

The country got through the above crisis which is extremely rare in any event. Democracy somehow always seems to find a way to survive. Our founding fathers were pretty smart cookies. They really did know what they were doing even way back then!

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:08 AM

originally posted by: tadaman
I am wondering what you will do if he or anyone else is denied the presidency after the election by our representatives?

If your cause is against the establishment and they deny you your champion, what is next?

It has happened before, and it will happen again. It happened as recently as W Bush. Our system isn't based on a popular vote so I don't see why it matters.

The more interesting scenario is if Trump or anyone else wins the electoral vote but there's some faithless electors who change their votes.

Either way however, I don't think much of anything would happen. The second scenario would probably get a few small protests, but nothing all that significant.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:28 AM

originally posted by: tadaman

Would a farmer voting in Utah be less represented than a guy in NY if both have the same power in their vote? REALLY?

It would still be a totality of opinion that is measured, not its even dispersal.

Yes, he would. Because a politician can cater to the guy in NY, ignore the issues of the guy in Utah, and still have an overwhelming advantage in the polls.

How would NY get more of a sway over a rural state if it is still 1 of a possible 50 votes?

If each state has an equal number of votes then the exact opposite happens.

Utah only has a population of 3.1 million people, while New York has a population of 19.8 million people. Assuming a 40% voter turnout, and that things are mostly split that means a politician only has to make 620,000 people happy to get the vote of Utah while they have to make 3.96 million people happy to get the vote of New York.

When you have limited budgets to court votes, it means your spending is going to be about 6.4x more effective by listening to Utah than by listening to New York. In which case you have a tyranny of the minority, which is no better than the reverse which is caused purely by a popular vote.

originally posted by: tadaman
Look for average people with good disposition, who are trust worthy, unaffiliated and politically debt free.

Why? Why should the average person be in charge of one of the most important parts of our lives? Do corporations entrust the big decisions to the average guy working on the floor? Does the generals in the military give the average private fresh out of boot camp a say in how things are run?

The average person is not fit to lead.
edit on 8-3-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:35 AM
Well, it happened with Al Gore.

We didn't have a revolution or revolt back then. They stretched out the hanging chad crap for so long people were weary of the entire thing....people were just glad SOMEONE was crowned POTUS.

Because, let's be serious...these days it really is like a sports event and a champion gets "crowned" the winner.

Sorry, I'm feeling grouchy. Anyway, I don't think we'd see any huge riots or anything...the only way someone could win the popular vote but not be elected would be in a real close race. The parties wouldn't just iron-fist someone into the White House. It won't happen. The parties have to "appear" to still listen to the people.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:43 AM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Gore invented the internets. 3 Billion ungrateful internets users who are so ungrateful. I would love to live in or see in fiction an alternative universe where Gore wins in 2000. Please don't correct me with facts, I'm not in the mood for reality.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 01:52 AM
a reply to: JustSayNo

Well my late senator called it a "series of tubes"

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 02:54 AM

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: crazyewok

Agree entirely.

We say its the best, like watching whats on TV that sucks, but doing so because the remote is just too far to get up and as to watch what you really want.

This is laziness on our part.

Fix it, but leave it alone.....sure

Fight the establishment ra ra ra, but then ask for permission.

Change, hope, fear us....yeah.

To be fair it has it own weaknesse.

We have a weaker executive branch but a lot stronger equivalent to a judicial branch.
We don't have things like goverment shutdowns because one party throws a tantrum but we do have weaker central leadership.

Guess it comes down to what you prefer.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 03:06 AM
I imagine there will be lots of bluster about walking on Washington, but it won't happen conservatives will blame liberals and liberals will blame conservatives and it will be the same for another 4 years. With the same moaning about the "establishment, the media and anything else. The personal responsibility of conservatives will turn into their usual blaming of the usual suspects as they realise they've blown it for another general election.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 05:34 AM
a reply to: tadaman


When is a nations people ever prepared, adequately prepared to fight its establishment?

American citizens have some distinct advantages over the populations of other nations, when it comes to actually defending their rights. For a start, they have the right, with varying degrees of actual access to that right, to arm themselves for their defence against tyranny, enshrined in a document which helped create the nation as it is known today. They have the right to assemble, to protest, to free speech and expression.

And yet, where are the ravening hordes of utterly appalled persons, battering down the doors of representatives who fail to represent, chewing through and spitting out the red tape that keeps them from being directly involved in their political process at the national level, where are the concerned citizens preventing the Utah Data Centre from being staffed, by encircling it with pickets, protesting at the scandalous violation of rights that the place exemplifies? Where are the veterans demanding transparency about what they were ordered to do, and why, and in whose name? Where are the patriots, sick of the honour of their nation being sold, and its military personnel used as mercenaries to further the business interests of a tiny minority?

Why is any person who values their nations representative democracy, doing anything but picketing the rallies of the tyrants in waiting, who prey on voters to legitimise their megalomania? Why is the electoral college still able to do business, instead of being incapable of leaving their homes, due to the mass of people ordering them to bow to the will of the people, and leave the voting EXCLUSIVELY to the people who pay the taxes?

Why are Democrat voters not lobbying and harassing the DNC to abolish superdelegates, ensuring by so doing, that only the individual on the street has any power to affect who becomes their nominee?


Because the tyrannies to which they are exposed are well dressed, carefully hidden, professionally detailed and ready for the road, hidden just well enough to fool a population on aggregate, but incapable of fooling the astute few who have been paying attention, who are caught between the spittle launching lunacy of both sides most ardent supporters, with no sense, no options left to them which represent their reason and intelligence.

In short, they are incapable of acting, because they are divided.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 05:46 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I have long wanted the elimination of the electoral college so that the President is elected solely by the direct popular vote of the people. But it would indeed require a united effort starting at the grass roots level and implemented by our elected representatives to make such a change occur. Unfortunately I wouldn't bet the farm on seeing this happen any time soon!

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 06:05 AM
I dont think a true democracy works once you get out of about city state size.

the system can be changed, we just have to stop with the top down mentality... you have to take the states away from the corrupt few before you can really have a chance at fixing DC.

We should still try to get good people into DC, but to expect them to fix everything that is broken is crazy it will never happen.

But folks are so focused on DC, you could very well take back enough states to put DC in a strangle hold.

Imagine if enough states starting thinking of the people by the people for the people...and they call a constitutional convention to force term limits on congress, or fore them to spend within their means.(just examples, just woke up dont freak out on me.) It would scare the bejeesus out of them heck, even if the amendments didnt get passed for whatever reason they would be terrified.

Remember Perot's party... congress was actually useful for a few years after a third party just made it onto the scene, now imagine a third party with more states swinging away from the washington style politics. Its a nice dream and until the day they turn us into a police state we should fight for it, and never settle for the lesser of two evils.

saw a thing recently something like 43% of american voters are independent or unaffiliated, then something like 26% were republicans, and 30% were democrats. (or something close to that) If that is true why in the heck are people choosing not to vote instead of smashing what are becoming two fringe political parties.

Heck if half the people that dont vote come out and vote on election day and they all vote for some third party they like, we would have a plethora of choices...

I dont know caffeine has not kicked in yet and I am rambling I will wander off into the corner for now.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 09:34 AM
The rules are the rules.

We have delegate votes which don't necessarily mirror popular votes. This is to keep the most populous states from having an unfair advantage over smaller states. If it were about popular votes, then NYC and CA would pretty much be the only states that mattered while the middle of the country would be forgotten. One could argue that popular vote gets all delegate votes. However, you still would have situations where someone could win the Presidency with most delegates, but not the popular vote nationwide.

Popular vote is dangerous, particularly when you see how uneducated the vast majority of American's are when it comes to issues and our political system. I am not even talking about policy disagreements between Republicans and Democrats, but that a large percentage of the population can't even name the three branches of government yet these people vote.

Majority rule is just a fancy way of saying mob rule.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 10:48 AM
a reply to: Edumakated

I understand the rationale for the electoral college but I can't agree that majority rule is mob rule. Yes the people who vote should know the issues and the candidates and have a basic understanding of government and how it works, but the way to achieve this is through better educational opportunities.

I still would like to do away with the electoral college and let a better educated electorate choose their President directly!

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: kendix1960

So if the majority of the people are against gay marriage, would you accept the will of the people? The only reason gay marriage went to the Supreme Court was that every time it was put up for ballot at the state level, it typically failed. People don't vote for it.

On any number of issues, if put to popular vote, the issue fails.

This does not mean the people are always right, it just means the majority will not vote for it.

If popular vote were all that mattered, then every policy issue would be decided by CA and NYC. Why should NYC have more say than the people of Ohio? While many residents, think those states are the center of the universe, many people in middle america would disagree.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding on what is for dinner. Our founding fathers recognized this which is why the system is designed with checks and balances.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:16 AM
a reply to: Edumakated

But that's the point of a constitution.
To enshrine rights that can't and should not be changed.

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:38 AM
a reply to: Edumakated

I do see the merits to the electoral college and I agree that as a matter of principle N.Y. and California are not more important than Maine and Vermont in the electoral process, but what we need is a better educated electorate so we can have a meaningful direct popular vote to choose our president. As it presently stands, and most unfortunately, we're just not there yet!

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: tadaman

you mean like Al Gore did in 2000?....

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: tadaman

Well...This question has been answered before in history and most recently in 2000 with Pres. GWB vs. Gore.

The party that loses will complain and shout and then move on...well at least that was how it was for the Democrats...with the right wing having nurtured an extremist ideology it's possible there will be some violence if the GOP loses this way.

The electoral college elects Presidents in the USA..

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in