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

Broken system: Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: gladtobehere


It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.


Exactly, but it never was, and for that reason. It's a republic. True democracy is way too leftist for people here


I would rather it be a democracy. Is what it is I suppose.

That said, if Trump won the popular vote, but lost the election... I have a strong feeling Trump supporters would be crying foul and Dems would be telling them to suck it up (just like the members above are doing). Both sides would be guilty of this. The electoral college is only a problem for most people if it doesn't work in their favor.



100% spot on.




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Strange you want to silence the preferred presidential candidate for the majority of states.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: SignalMal

Right now, small (population-wise) states like Delaware, Montana, Wyoming, Etc., get 3 electoral votes. This is more than 1% of what is needed to elect a president (270). These electoral votes from these small states can make a difference and cause presidential candidates to come campaign there and listen to their demands (see New Hampshire). Most of these states have populations which are far far less than 1% of the countries population.


Okay then it doesn't track population at the extremes, or at least the lower end too accurately.


With a pure popular vote system, the fear of small states, which the constitution was drafted to address, is that the larger population states such as NY and California would hold all the power because they would provide the vast majority of the votes needed to get elected and the small states would be forgotten as candidates would spend all their time in the big big states because the vote payoff would be greater.


I think this was more relevant before our technology affords us such ease of travel and communication. Heck, there's a global Americanized culture forming the world over due to the information age and our high ranking still. The fear makes sense for when the law was passed, but it holds little relevance for the current landscape.


That said, the electoral system yields its own weird results. It leads to many of the big states being almost ignored in the campaigns after the primaries end, and the campaigns centering virtually all of their effort on 5-10 "swing" states.


We see how well that worked out for Hillary, no?


My point is that right or wrong, it is very hard to amend the Constitution for any purpose due to the ratification process. To pass something that would be perceived to pass power from a bunch of small states over to a few big states, is almost impossible to imagine.


So we have two examples of how our system is broken then?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SignalMal

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: SignalMal

Right now, small (population-wise) states like Delaware, Montana, Wyoming, Etc., get 3 electoral votes. This is more than 1% of what is needed to elect a president (270). These electoral votes from these small states can make a difference and cause presidential candidates to come campaign there and listen to their demands (see New Hampshire). Most of these states have populations which are far far less than 1% of the countries population.


Okay then it doesn't track population at the extremes, or at least the lower end too accurately.


With a pure popular vote system, the fear of small states, which the constitution was drafted to address, is that the larger population states such as NY and California would hold all the power because they would provide the vast majority of the votes needed to get elected and the small states would be forgotten as candidates would spend all their time in the big big states because the vote payoff would be greater.


I think this was more relevant before our technology affords us such ease of travel and communication. Heck, there's a global Americanized culture forming the world over due to the information age and our high ranking still. The fear makes sense for when the law was passed, but it holds little relevance for the current landscape.


That said, the electoral system yields its own weird results. It leads to many of the big states being almost ignored in the campaigns after the primaries end, and the campaigns centering virtually all of their effort on 5-10 "swing" states.


We see how well that worked out for Hillary, no?


My point is that right or wrong, it is very hard to amend the Constitution for any purpose due to the ratification process. To pass something that would be perceived to pass power from a bunch of small states over to a few big states, is almost impossible to imagine.


So we have two examples of how our system is broken then?


But the thing is.....it ISN'T broken......if Hillary did a better job campaigning in the swing states and in the states that was traditionally Democrat that was straight out flipped (Pennsylvania, Michigan etc.) (and she wasn't unpopular due to rampant corruption) she would have done better and it could just as easily have gone against Trump
edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SignalMal
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion.


If you can't or simply won't understand the concept then I can't help you understand how it works.....in small countries a democracy works fine and is very fair as most people want the same things.....in a very large country not so much as the needs of one area do not always coincide with the needs (or wants) of the others.
edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

I see. Well then you obviously have a vastly superior understanding here.

Carry on.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Or...... you were made to think that Clinton was winning the popularity contest by the MSM...



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
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.


We live in a representative republic. I don't see any problem here, and I don't like Trump either. The EC is a good system though.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

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.

Hell they colored it blue before the votes were even over 30% counted.
I think that's the most disturbing aspect of the whole thing in itself!
55 votes and we all know where they stand before they even say so...


Within a decade both Texas and California will be blue unless we end up with some other new hip tech mecca.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SignalMal
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

I see. Well then you obviously have a vastly superior understanding here.

Carry on.


I'm sorry if I came off sounding condescending....wasn't intentional....just tired. Think of specific issues that effect the country as a whole today......firearms legislation for example......some areas really like the ideas of regulating it (in some cases severely). Others don't want legislation of that kind......why should the people of California which is 3000 miles from say New Hampshire and outpopulates them as a state say 20 times over be able to dictate policy (by electing a leader that is all for firearm legislation) for New Hampshire by sheer weight of the people who live there? All of the states are represented by electorals that depend on the size of the population of the state to a minimum of 3 for the least populated....this ensures that all states regardless of population have a representative voice that is not entirely dependent on the population of the area. The electors are supposed to follow the wishes of the people who elected them as representatives (though they sometimes do what they want anyways) and when they do you vote them out in the next election with a vote that is strictly democratic if you don't agree with how they cast their electoral votes. It is a failsafe so that large population areas aren't automatically granted the power of electing a leader who will try and formulate legislation unpopular with sections of the country.....

I am not sure if I am explaining it clearly...someone else can probably explain it better....I have been up 24 hours and am quite tired lol


edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
This whole "she won the popular vote" is a red herring. One effect of the electoral college is to depress voting in certain circumstances. For example, if you lived in California and are a conservative, you'd know that your vote for President would be overwhelmed by all the libs, who outnumber you in California, thus making Cali, NY, IL, "safe" states for (D)'s *in the electoral college*. Your vote won't count, so you might not even vote.

The opposite, if you lived in Wyoming and are a conservative, you might not vote because you know Wy is going (R) whether you show up or not. Again, a vote not cast because of how the electoral college works. A vote not cast is a vote not counted in the "popular" vote tally.

Like when I lived in Illinois, there was no point in me even going to the polls in mayoral elections because there often wasn't even an opposition. So I didn't vote. The real number to look at is how many eligible voters actually voted.

In a popular vote election, your vote counts equally to everyone else's. So there is incentive for you to get out and vote. Different system, different incentives.
edit on 9-11-2016 by LanceCorvette because: add words



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
congrats to the republicans, you shocked a heck of alot of people with that win!!!
now, we can sit back and see what he can accomplish.

there was a disturbing trend in this election though, and I think that not only trump and hillary has to work on solving it, but also us.
close to 50% of the republicans who were poled said they actually feared a clinton presidency, while about the same average of democrats said they feared a trump presidency.
it's time to prove those fears unfounded.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LanceCorvette

but, then, this election comes around and overturns the map some....
maybe there was more republicans sitting on the sidelines in previous elections thinking this way that just couldn't do it this time and it made a difference in states like pennsylvania and michigan.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Why do all the major cities consistently vote liberal? What is it about city life that makes you become a whiny depraved social justice warrior?

I was hoping Trump might flip NY. Nope. We have 5 major cities - NYC, Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester. All of them voted democrat. All the other counties in the state voted Republican. If you look at a county by county map of NY, the vast majority of it is red. The only blue spots are urban centers.

This is why the democrats got the popular vote - big cities. The Republicans got more electoral votes because they won the vast majority of state counties.

If all our cities got bombed into ruin, I think I would be happy with what it would do to United States politics.

It just gets me. Looking at the electoral map of NY. All these counties are red, then you look at New York county and 88% of the people there voted for hillary. Was she giving blowjobs to all the million people living there?
edit on 11/9/16 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

We do not live in a democracy. The United States is a republic. The electoral votes represent a voice for each state. According to the system, without them the election would be unbalanced. The system is therefore not broken...it worked as it's designed to work.

That is if you actually believe the system even exists in the first place, if you believe it is more than just a facade, more than a running joke on the American public. If you do not believe that...well, that is a different topic entirely.

I do feel for those who wanted so badly for Hillary to win. I think it would be awesome if those who are taking every opportunity to gloat over the win like a pack of cackling hyenas would instead start behaving like the adults they're supposed to be and help everyone come together to focus on the very serious issues that we still currently face...but those who behave that way on these forums have consistently acted like children throughout the entire race, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. That is disappointing, because those issues are not going away, and now more than ever, we need to be united rather than hopelessly divided.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
congrats to the republicans, you shocked a heck of alot of people with that win!!!
now, we can sit back and see what he can accomplish.

there was a disturbing trend in this election though, and I think that not only trump and hillary has to work on solving it, but also us.
close to 50% of the republicans who were poled said they actually feared a clinton presidency, while about the same average of democrats said they feared a trump presidency.
it's time to prove those fears unfounded.


well said and couldn't agree more


you too tigertatzen...could not agree more....it is time to let it go and work for the betterment of the country
edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: 3rd time for spelling is a charm



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...

Google: www.google.com...=enn/p//0/0///////////

NPR: www.npr.org...

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.

So we should let New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, etc. count more than the rest of the United States?



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: sprtpilot

Omg thanks for posting this....I'm tired of doing it.

.2% more of the people to lol.

Well people, maybe this is what the democrats should have done when they controlled all 3 branches...no they installed and crammed the unaffordable healthcare act. Guess the republicans will do the opposite in their turn.

Though, to their credit, I don't believe the representatives have to vote the will of the people, but should no matter what. This ensure the people's represented vote.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere




It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.


1. We haven't had a democracy we have had an Oligarch,

2.I think the Establishment letting Trump win is more about following Machiavellian tactics than anything else.

Had Trump lost that could have caused a large portion of the population to revolt and give up on the system. In the long term its more important to keep up the illusion of the peoples will and illusion of their vote mattering, than to push the population enough to a point of revolt.

Trump had a following whether you agree with him or not which can't be denied. She was a manufactured candidate with the DNC,MSM, and even some GOP members behind her. Yet she had to pay for support at rallies and social media bots.

It would have been to obvious if she won and in the face of the masses for it to not cause a disruption in the system.


3. Its Karma for how she stole it from Bernie.



edit on 031130America/ChicagoWed, 09 Nov 2016 12:03:21 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join