It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...
I havent checked the other sites but I would imagine that they too have the same results.
Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election..
Hillary's 59,323,520 votes (47.7%) to Trump's 59,152,992 votes (47.5%)
Its the year 2000 and a Bush victory all over again.
If in-fact we live in a democracy or the illusion of one, then the person with the most votes has to be the winner.
It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.
originally posted by: SignalMal
originally posted by: muzzleflash
California gets 55 votes.
How can you ignore that?
55! That's equivalent to dozens of other states combined!
And they almost always vote the same way.
Are you not ignoring the obvious, that California has the rough population equivalent to those other states combined?
I do get your point, if it was a true democracy those individual votes would count, and go to more than one candidate.
originally posted by: sprtpilot
Nope, the system is exactly correct, we live in a representative republic, quite ingenious.
Prevents mob rule don't you know?
Why should a very few populous areas be able to dictate to the entire country? Think about it.
originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: SignalMal
The problem with doing away with the electoral college system is it would require a massive amendment to the constitution. Then 2/3 of the states would have to ratify that amendment. So, it would require a large number of smaller states to approve a constitutional amendment that would be adverse to their own interest.
originally posted by: Christosterone
I love winning...
FYI, the framers feared the non land owning knaves of New England imposing their ruling sensibilities to rural virginia by way of general numbers...
Thus creating the electoral college to keep the unwashed mashes of urban populations from legislating life for the rest of the country whose sensibilities were born of their societies(i.e. rural or non-urban)
It was and remains genius!!
Long live the Infallible Queen...oops, I mean long live the new President of the United States, Donald J Trump!!!
But how could direct democracy work in a large, diverse population spread over a geographical distance? Generally, the answer has been that it can't. In its place, the American Founders put "indirect" or "representative" democracy. In this system, representatives are chosen by the people to make decisions for them. The representative body, then, becomes a manageable size for doing the business of government. The Founders preferred the term "republic" to "democracy" because it described a system they generally preferred: the interests of the peopled were represented by more knowledgeable or wealthier citizens who were responsible to those that elected them. Today we tend to use the terms "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably. A widespread criticism of representative democracy is that the representatives become the "elites" that seldom consult ordinary citizens, so even though they are elected, a truly representative government doesn't really exist.
1c. What Is a Democracy?