It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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

Electoral College Question

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I have a question about the electoral college. Why must a states votes go all go to the same candidate except for, Nebraska and Maine?

It just seems like it would be a better process if the district voted for who their district voted for and not who won the entire state.
Here is a summary of our electoral college votes and where they come from:



Currently, there is a total of 538 electors, there being 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors allocated to Washington, D.C.. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20) and Pennsylvania (20).


I am tired of little states being ignored or rural areas having no say. It seems like if you do not live in a large city then you have no say in the election. New York state is decided by New York City; Ohio seems to get decided on by Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.

Am I understanding things wrong? How can this be right? Does it still work out? Sorry if these are silly questions, I really want to understand.




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

It is a balagan. But the states have the power to decide how they want to do it.
Today it has become very unfair to many states. But like everything else nobody wants to change anything for the better.

Buck



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

The best we can hope for out of the 2016 election is that the American people wake up and make changes before the 2020 elections.

The whole election process, including the electoral votes needs to be completely re-done.


Unfortunately that won't happen because on Nov 9, the sheeple will have already forgotten all the corruption, lying, rigging, cheating etc that has infested what was supposed to be the 2016 election.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Technically they don't need to go to the same candidate but it is understood and customary that an Electors for a certain state will honor the "winner take all" of the popular vote in their state.

However, and this is a key point that is not being raised, there is NO law binding an Elector to honor either their initial pledge or the winner of the state.

When an Elector votes against their pledge or the losing candidate from their state they are known as a "Faithless Elector."

My personal theory is that many Electors will be solicited for bribes to vote for Hillary, NO MATTER the outcome of the popular vote. I think we will see a higher number of Faithless Electors in this election than in any other prior election in US history.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It should be done differently. Case in point: Al Gore.

If the people had gotten what they wanted, Gore would have been in office, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, and chances are there would be no ISIS. Chances are he would have acted on the clear information that binladen was planning an attack, and there might not have been a 911.

Thank you Florida.

edit on 11/2/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
To my knowledge this is all determined at a state level. So what we need to do, BEFORE the major elections, is work our best to vote in the smaller elections as well, vote for every thing you CAN vote for, and vote in the way you'd like to see your state work.

I'm not sure that came out as clear as I wanted it to, but hopefully you get what I'm saying..

-Alee



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Martin75

The best we can hope for out of the 2016 election is that the American people wake up and make changes before the 2020 elections.

The whole election process, including the electoral votes needs to be completely re-done.


Unfortunately that won't happen because on Nov 9, the sheeple will have already forgotten all the corruption, lying, rigging, cheating etc that has infested what was supposed to be the 2016 election.


Why ? The number of electoral votes was based on the population of the States. Remeber this is a controlled Republic and not a Democracy . A true Democratic Republic would be "mob rule"re:"chaos" . But I guess thats what Liberals want. And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like .
If you are informed on the rules of this nation and the electoral college , there is a reason it exists.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I don't understand why certain states have more votes than others. It seems antiquated and unfair. Each state should be entitled to one electoral college vote. This way more populous states don't have more say over more rural states. Also, it means politicians need to pay attention to the entire country, not just a handful of states.

Popular vote for President is dangerous. Particularly given how uneducated a lot of people are in this country. Mob rule is never good. Sometimes the minority is right.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

I absolutely agree with you 100%. I've been saying for years that the EVs need to be apportioned by Congressional district, as this would give political minority populations in many states a voice in presidential elections that they simply do not have right now.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tman2135
a reply to: Martin75

Technically they don't need to go to the same candidate but it is understood and customary that an Electors for a certain state will honor the "winner take all" of the popular vote in their state.

However, and this is a key point that is not being raised, there is NO law binding an Elector to honor either their initial pledge or the winner of the state.

When an Elector votes against their pledge or the losing candidate from their state they are known as a "Faithless Elector."

That's right, and as far as the faithless electors are concerned, there has been occasions when that happened, but to be fair it is a rare or extraordinary event, ahem......like now?

Pople should be allowed to make their vote count, having said that, I think that vote should only be put in a box in a designated venue, and finally counted in that venue with multi disciplined supervisors and overseers from all parties concerned. The electoral college is naff and elitist in today's terms...kick 'em into touch.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Martin75

The best we can hope for out of the 2016 election is that the American people wake up and make changes before the 2020 elections.

The whole election process, including the electoral votes needs to be completely re-done.


Unfortunately that won't happen because on Nov 9, the sheeple will have already forgotten all the corruption, lying, rigging, cheating etc that has infested what was supposed to be the 2016 election.


Why ? The number of electoral votes was based on the population of the States. Remeber this is a controlled Republic and not a Democracy . A true Democratic Republic would be "mob rule"re:"chaos" . But I guess thats what Liberals want. And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like .
If you are informed on the rules of this nation and the electoral college , there is a reason it exists.



"And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like."

Any state that can cast their electoral vote against the wishes of its citizens, it needs to be revamped. Bottom line, If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, the electoral votes should go to that candidate for that state.

I suspect that this election will show states where the candidate easily won the popular vote but the electoral vote will go to the other candidate.
edit on R072016-11-02T10:07:39-05:00k0711Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R092016-11-02T10:09:43-05:00k0911Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R102016-11-02T10:10:22-05:00k1011Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Martin75

The best we can hope for out of the 2016 election is that the American people wake up and make changes before the 2020 elections.

The whole election process, including the electoral votes needs to be completely re-done.


Unfortunately that won't happen because on Nov 9, the sheeple will have already forgotten all the corruption, lying, rigging, cheating etc that has infested what was supposed to be the 2016 election.


Why ? The number of electoral votes was based on the population of the States. Remeber this is a controlled Republic and not a Democracy . A true Democratic Republic would be "mob rule"re:"chaos" . But I guess thats what Liberals want. And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like .
If you are informed on the rules of this nation and the electoral college , there is a reason it exists.



"And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like."

Any state that can cast their electoral vote against the wishes of its citizens, it needs to be revamped. Bottom line, If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, the electoral votes should go to that candidate for that state.

I suspect that this election will show states where the candidate easily won the popular vote but the electoral vote will go to the other candidate.

I intentionally left a part out. Just to see who would comment. Even though my statement is correct, read up on the ramifications. Also , how many times an electoral vote has been cast otherwise (and why)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Thanks everyone!!!! ATS is full of such valuable information!!!



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Martin75

The best we can hope for out of the 2016 election is that the American people wake up and make changes before the 2020 elections.

The whole election process, including the electoral votes needs to be completely re-done.


Unfortunately that won't happen because on Nov 9, the sheeple will have already forgotten all the corruption, lying, rigging, cheating etc that has infested what was supposed to be the 2016 election.


Why ? The number of electoral votes was based on the population of the States. Remeber this is a controlled Republic and not a Democracy . A true Democratic Republic would be "mob rule"re:"chaos" . But I guess thats what Liberals want. And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like .
If you are informed on the rules of this nation and the electoral college , there is a reason it exists.



"And , most States have the right to cast their electoral votes for whichever candidate they would like."

Any state that can cast their electoral vote against the wishes of its citizens, it needs to be revamped. Bottom line, If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, the electoral votes should go to that candidate for that state.

I suspect that this election will show states where the candidate easily won the popular vote but the electoral vote will go to the other candidate.

I intentionally left a part out. Just to see who would comment. Even though my statement is correct, read up on the ramifications. Also , how many times an electoral vote has been cast otherwise (and why)


Doesn't matter,, it should be dictated by law, that the electoral votes should go to the candidate that has the most votes in that state.

The system is clearly broken,,, if the Presidential race of 2016 has proven that, nothing will.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
If you want the small states NOT to be ignored, the Electoral College is the way to do it. Look in the following thread for a complete explanation of how it all works.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler
Thank you!!!! Somehow I have missed that!!!! I will definitely look through it!



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tman2135
However, and this is a key point that is not being raised, there is NO law binding an Elector to honor either their initial pledge or the winner of the state.

When an Elector votes against their pledge or the losing candidate from their state they are known as a "Faithless Elector."

My personal theory is that many Electors will be solicited for bribes to vote for Hillary, NO MATTER the outcome of the popular vote. I think we will see a higher number of Faithless Electors in this election than in any other prior election in US history.


I don't think that you have correctly assessed how many state have laws that bind their electors to voting a certain way. FairVote:

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)


See, there are states with statutes that mandate that electors vote only for the candidate that takes the majority of the popular vote in that state. The problem therein lies with the punishments for acting as a Faithless Elector--they are minimal, so there's no real deterrent from someone choosing to break said laws and vote whomever they want to. Hell, they don't even need to vote for the party for which they are registered if another candidate tickles their fancy.

But the overall take-away from this relatively corrupt system of presidential voting is that the Electoral College is a relic from an era where it may have been slightly necessary when instituted, but has become a mandated tradition that is overwhelmingly failing this country.
edit on 2-11-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

All states should be ignored in a presidential election, as it's not the states electing the president, but the people of one nation.

The argument that we still need the EC because it balances the power between small and large states is irrelevant, as it's not the states who should be considered as voters. The ONLY reason that it is important as to how a state votes is BECAUSE of the Electoral College--it doesn't alleviate that problem or concern, but exacerbates it.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No, the state borders (and the population contained within) should hold zero bearing on the NATIONAL election of a president.

We need to just get rid of electoral votes altogether. The wishes of the citizen are ignore when a state is split 52/48 and then 48% of that state lose their votes for whomever they wish to be president.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join