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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
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


I would rather have an unqualified person with a conscience than a qualified person with no soul......just sayin'




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
None of this would be an issue had the DNC done the right thing and backed Bernie Sanders. People can bitch and moan all they want but the fact is the DNC #ed themselves and the rest of the USA.


I agree on this. Most 'freethinking' people strongly feel that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie. When the party refused to put Bernie on the ticket they shot themselves in the foot.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignorantamericans

The presidency doesn't come with many requirements, you just have to be eligible and win.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Thank you....I was sick of trying to explain it




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:02 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.



The US is a Representative Democracy, not a Direct Democracy. This isn't ancient Athens.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

It is completely true, when you hear politician, military etc speak they say they are spreading democracy, that's exactly what is always said, not we're spreading representative democracy or democratic republic, always say spreading democracy. And sorry but I've been all over the world place where they hate Americans places where as soon as they found out I was American they would become rude or their whole demeanor towards me would change and the vast majority of they say they hate the hypocrisy of America



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



And seeing first hand how the will of the voters translates to electoral votes was quite cool.


it is quite a ingenious system.

has it ever been abused? i would dare say yes, but only to the point of which states are red or blue and how a particular candidate runs their campaign .is there cronyism in the states? i would have to say yes, at the state level again as far as red and blue, and the fact that one would have to (imo) want to receive some sort political benefits.

to me whats so ingenious about it is that each elector pledges and has to vote with their states popular vote. there have only been a few times that electors have not held to their pledges.

a wiki cause it's fast,

In United States presidential elections, a faithless elector is a member of the United States Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidate for whom they had pledged to vote. That is, they actually vote for another candidate, or fail to vote, or choose not to vote. A pledged elector can become a faithless elector only by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break.
Faithless elector


and yes i have bitched in my younger days about it. then i educated myself on it.
edit on 9-11-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

It is completely true, when you hear politician, military etc speak they say they are spreading democracy, that's exactly what is always said, not we're spreading representative democracy or democratic republic, always say spreading democracy. And sorry but I've been all over the world place where they hate Americans places where as soon as they found out I was American they would become rude or their whole demeanor towards me would change and the vast majority of they say they hate the hypocrisy of America


well blame the globalists not Americans......the globalists have their claws in several countries not just America

the bankers and those seeking to create a one world government are the enemy of all mankind because believe me it won't be a gumdrops and lollypops democracy once they accomplish it


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



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
None of this would be an issue had the DNC done the right thing and backed Bernie Sanders. People can bitch and moan all they want but the fact is the DNC #ed themselves and the rest of the USA.


I agree on this. Most 'freethinking' people strongly feel that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie. When the party refused to put Bernie on the ticket they shot themselves in the foot.


You guys who were feeling the Bern can believeit or not all you want, but voting against Hillary was also for you guys. She and her corrupt apparatus screwed you all over hard.

Mind you, I would not have voted for Bernie, but an honest election would have been Bernie Trump, not Hillary Trump.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

No sorry america is always saying things and then contradicting itself, we talk about spreading democracy and then we force countries to form their governments they way we want them, that's just one quick example I could name tons of them but you get the point and that's why they hate us and claiming to be the spreader of democracy while at the sametime electing our highest office in a manner that is non-democratic



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
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

I'd still rather it be that way. However, look at this below:
en.wikipedia.org - Faithless elector...

The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."

So before you go off and dismiss electors, please consider that electors in some cases are not actually what we think they're. Rather than being independent, they're just echoing the public.

Another quote from the link shown above:

Twenty-one states do not have laws that compel their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.[2] Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.[1] In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, specify that the faithless elector's vote is void,[3] though no state has yet had cause to enforce such a provision.

So some electors--it seems--are perhaps independent and can vote on their own. That's reassuring but concerning all the same.
edit on 11/9/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

You must've not read the previous text I replied to when someone said that going solely based off popular vote would lead to unqualified person being elected and I responded that that's exactly what the electoral just did it allowed an unqualified person to get elected to that point is moot. And let's not deny and lie to ourself that trump is completely unqualified



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

No sorry america is always saying things and then contradicting itself, we talk about spreading democracy and then we force countries to form their governments they way we want them, that's just one quick example I could name tons of them but you get the point and that's why they hate us and claiming to be the spreader of democracy while at the sametime electing our highest office in a manner that is non-democratic


whatever.....I just explained it wasn't America it's globalists that engage in the empire building. You either refuse to accept that or choose not to....either way it pointless to continue.....if it makes you feel better you can tell yourself you won.....



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The current status quo:




posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Also you said it is hair echoing the public, but how is that echoing the public when the majority of the public voted for the candidate that lost, so that is exactly not echoing the majority of the public.



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: jonnywhite

Also you said it is hair echoing the public, but how is that echoing the public when the majority of the public voted for the candidate that lost, so that is exactly not echoing the majority of the public.

They echo their party pledge and also the voting public of their state. Depending on the state's laws regarding electors, they're an echo chamber. As I linked, it's implied not all electors are this way. And for that reason, it gives me hope. Also note the constitution asks for independent, non-partisan electors who're free agents. Requiring a pledge and/or nulling a vote if it doesn't abide the state vote is not exactly a free vote is it.

EDIT: Also just realized what you state as a problem is relevant to the electoral college. The electoral votes are what count, not the total vote. This is why the "unqualified" candidate wins over the more popular one. What I'm specifically addressing in my replies are the electors and whether they can vote freely. This is not the case in a number of states. They pledge and/or must heed the state's vote or suffer a void vote or worse. Truly independent electors--of which apparently there're a few--are an advantage in my view, assuming they're educated and well informed of the candidates. I think ti's good to have them there as a check against possible public ignorance. And similarly, we need to watch our electors and ensure corruption doesn't exist.
edit on 11/9/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=21499661]Darkphoenix77[/posto
Oh so because you say it's globalist I just have to agree, even though I gave you one quick example, and you just say it's the globalist and that's that. Is that incorrect America doesn't say it's spreading democracy and then forces countries to form their government the way America wants it, that's not true or what. You don't have to get all teary-eyed and angry because you can't come up with a reasonable answer
edit on 9-11-2016 by Ignorantamericans because: Misspelled



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

Oh so because you say it's globalist I just have to agree, even though I gave you one quick example, and you just say it's the globalist and that's that. Is that incorrect America doesn't say it's spreading democracy and then forces countries to form their government the way America wants it, that's not true or what. You don't have to get all teary-eyed and angry because you can't come up with a reasonable answer



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkphoenix77

Seems like your the one who refuses to accept that people around the world hate us because of our hypocrisy and you just want to blame someone/something else



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

I like a good debate or good conversation so don't take anything the wrong way. But I spent years learning about America politics and the machinery of American politics and government and after all those years in come to believe that the electoral is a broken system, when more Americans vote for a certain candidate and that candidate loses then I believe that is truly unamerican and that there is something completely wrong with that system. In every other aspect of American politics it doesn't work like that




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join