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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Shar

There you go assuming I'm a Clinton supporter, you should make assumptions just because a person doesn't agree with a system, I don't care about Clinton or trump, I care about the fact that our system is broke, so you can quit whining and eat a bag of baby d1cks



With that last line you do sound like a Clinton supporter.




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignorantamericans

oh ok smart guy. look up the term rhetoric and read my post again. calling it babble diminishes your credibility. no I am not claiming to know anything. I am claiming it is likely based the population numbers. It is trending and modeling not fortune telling.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Claiming to know what would happen based off of what, your a fortune teller, you see the future. You don't know what would happen because we've never had a straight forward popular vote for the presidency. Like I said before rhetoric and nonsense, make up all the babble you want



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

Of course I know that but you also fail to see the point, don't try to basically tell someone their uneducated when you can't even see the point in what I'm saying. Maybe analyze a little or I can point it out since you don't seem to quick on the uptake



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

Of course I know that but you also fail to see the point, don't try to basically tell someone their uneducated when you can't even see the point in what I'm saying. Maybe analyze it a little more or I can point it out since you don't seem to quick on the uptake
edit on 9-11-2016 by Ignorantamericans because: Incorrect wording



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:31 PM
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.



Typical Liberal Racist Tactic - Trying to de-legitamize Trumps win because he is a white man.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

You have no basis because there has never been a presidential election when only the popular matters. And I said rhetoric and babble because the first thing I said was people can make up any excuse but it doesn't matter because when more Americans vote for a certain candidate and that candidate loses then there is something very wrong with that



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

Of course I know that but you also fail to see the point, don't try to basically tell someone their uneducated when you can't even see the point in what I'm saying. Maybe analyze a little or I can point it out since you don't seem to quick on the uptake


I am not saying you are uneducated just not educated when it comes to America's form of government. What is your point? Simply that it should be a democracy period and it ain't fair? Write your representative and ask if they will bring it before congress to change the Constitution via an Amendment if that is the case because that is the only way it will ever or can ever change.

This isn't a democracy.....period. Never was

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



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Really because I'm sure trump is the one who talks inappropriately, but yea try again. Don't care who won, I care that we have a broke, stupid system.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

No.

The system is working as intended. Why on earth should the people who live stacked on top of each other in three megalopolises of Chicago, the cities along teh Cali coast and New York determine who gets to rule literally everyone else in the country?

That is in no way shape or form representative of the people in this country, and it is exactly why the EC exists.

Tyranny of the majority, indeed.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: gladtobehere

No.

The system is working as intended. Why on earth should the people who live stacked on top of each other in three megalopolises of Chicago, the cities along teh Cali coast and New York determine who gets to rule literally everyone else in the country?

That is in no way shape or form representative of the people in this country, and it is exactly why the EC exists.

Tyranny of the majority, indeed.


I'm beginning to wonder if the ones making posts like this repeating the same spiel over and over are on a now *ahem* defunct payroll......if so the are in for a shock because I think that deal was null and void when she failed to get elected.

not yours I mean but the ones you are referencing
edit on 9-11-2016 by Darkphoenix77 because: clarification



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

My point is that America shouts to the world that we are the epitome of democracy, not representative democracy or democratic republic or anything else you want to put there we claim to be the ultimate DEMOCRACY but we're not so we should quit claiming to be unless we do truly become the ultimate democracy. That's my point more hypocrisy from us, and that's why the rest of the world hates us. And just to make a point I have a B.S. in political science, understand it all just don't agree with it



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I don't necessarily like the idea of giving a minority more power than their population numbers would denote to them, BUT the idea of having electors who ultimately make the vote is good because whereas they're educated and knowledgeable on the candidate, the general public may not be. A public which possibly votes on ignorance could hypothetically elect someone unqualified. Electors can potentially correct that. BUT this is all I like about it.

The idea of giving a minority more power in the presidential election only matters because a president can influence/rule the nation as a whole. IF states have more power granted to them, this is less a concern. So the more tyrannical our president, the more power we'll have to grant to minorities to counter the threat.

I think I do agree voters living in steel jungles--particularly in coastal areas--shouldn't have all encompassing power to rule over those living in the countryside and rural areas. But really this is about how tyrannical the system is. How overarching are the laws? We should be opposing tyranny of any sort, whether it's stemming from the majority or the elite few. This is why I warmed up to the libertarian candidate. I do believe we need a government, but we need to be reminded every now and then what's necessary and what isn't.
edit on 11/9/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Isn't that what happens now, the larger state with the large amount of electoral votes determines the winner, and your making an assumption based off of no previous examples, big cities wouldn't be deciding who won the whole country would be deciding who won because every single Americans vote would actually count towards who won



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

My point is that America shouts to the world that we are the epitome of democracy, not representative democracy or democratic republic or anything else you want to put there we claim to be the ultimate DEMOCRACY but we're not so we should quit claiming to be unless we do truly become the ultimate democracy. That's my point more hypocrisy from us, and that's why the rest of the world hates us. And just to make a point I have a B.S. in political science, understand it all just don't agree with it


The rest of the world hates us for blindly following badly elected leaders for the past 30 years and getting into wars at the behests of globalists over dumb reasons.....that changed last night hopefully. The only truly justified war was the first attack in Iraq when they invaded Kuwait and that should have been finished the first time not go back 10 years later for at that time no reason except so Bush Jr. could correct the mistakes of his dad.

it isn't correct but it is easier and lazier for most that are partial to brevity to just say democracy to foreigners.....if you really have a problem with that then call it a representative constitutional republic whenever you tell anyone about our government and problem is solved.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

I fully expected that if it came about that she won popular there would be another full court press to scrap the EC. This is just the first salvo.

The EC is A-OK when it serves their purposes and saves their bacon, but it stinks when something like this happens. People like this have no consistency at all. They simply want what they want when they want it, and now they want a Clinton win, and this is the reason why they donLt have it.

As we can see from the press today, others are blaming the minorities for not voting rightand still others are calling all of us every nasty name under the sun.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The electoral college protects lower population States from higher population States. If we just went with raw popular vote, the higher population States would dominate in Presidential elections.

Now does the system need to be 'tweaked'? Absolutely, I would like to see electors free to vote on according to how 'their district' voted (like it was before 1880) and not have to throw in with the State's popular selection, this would help prevent having large population centers in a State overwhelm the vote in lower population areas (look at california's past voting cycles and you will see what I mean).



Here is a map overlay I did from 2012 it shows that there were approximately 26 Congressional districts that voted all or mostly Democrat and assuming the 2 Senatorial chosen electors also went Democrat that puts 28 electoral votes towards the Democratic Presidential candidate, 'but' would leave 27 electors the freedom to vote how their districts majority voted. but unfortunately California law (other states also) has where all electoral votes goes to the majority, which leave the lower population counties/districts at the mercy of the higher population ones.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Mind you in not a Clinton supports or a trump supporter I really don't care for either just to point that out because I know what most responses would be to me saying, with the electoral we just did elect an unqualified person, so even with the electoral an unqualified person was just elected so not any different then if the popular elected an unqualified person



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignorantamericans

No, the opposite happens today 200,000 votes in Wyoming have the same value as 1 million votes in California. The Electoral College gives a lot of power to smaller areas.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: ketsuko

Isn't that what happens now, the larger state with the large amount of electoral votes determines the winner, and your making an assumption based off of no previous examples, big cities wouldn't be deciding who won the whole country would be deciding who won because every single Americans vote would actually count towards who won


No.

The areas with the densest population decide because they would have the highest concentration of potential votes.

As it is now, the smaller states matter because the votes are apportioned proportionately. Candidates must spend time paying attention to the concerns of the dirt farmers of Iowa just like they do the barrio dwellers in LA. With a strict popular vote, who cares anymore about the dirt farmers of Iowa? All you need to do is win over the barrio abnd ghetto and suburbanites of the biggest cities and you win.

What you fail to think about is that the issues that are most important to those groups are very different. Urban and rural life are very different. Just take into account transpportation needs. City dwellers are likely to favor mass transit, they won't be as upset about electric car intitiatives and things like that, but if you live rural, odds are you need a heavy duty truck, possibly farm equipment, you likely need to travel large distances. Farmers can't get by with electric cars and mass transit is useless to them.

The cultural divides and living differences would create a poilicy imbalance that is mitigated somehwat by the EC and the need to pay attentuion to address the needs of all the citizens andnot just the large city urbanites.




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join