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 for dummies

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
People who have never complained about the electoral college are now starting to because they actually think the collective popular vote means anything. So here it is explained simply.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE FOR IDIOTS

Let's say the US is made up of only 4 states and each state has 10 electoral votes, also each states holds approximately 1,000,000 citizens.

For the first three states let's say 500,001 people voted trump in 3/4 states, that would mean Trump won the popular votes for those 3 states and now he has 30 Electoral votes.

So now, trump has 1,500,003 popular votes and 30 Electoral.

That leaves Hillary with 1,499,997 popular votes and 0 electoral college votes.

Now let's say Hillary wins the last state, And in this final state which also consists of 1,000,000 citizens approximately 900,000 of them. vote for Hillary .

That would mean Hillary now collectively has 2,399,997 popular votes compared to trump who now has 1,600,003 popular votes. Meanwhile Trump would have 30 Electoral votes and Clinton would only have 10.
edit on 13-11-2016 by omniEther because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I feel dumber after reading this. Your numbers seem weird.

Edit, nevermind. I see something was fixed.
But I still don't think this explanation does anything to redeem the electoral college.
The real purpose of the EC is as a last resort safeguard so the people can't elect a tyrant, such as Hillary Clinton for instance.
edit on 13-11-2016 by Socrato because: edited



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Thanks for the clarification.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Socrato

The reason for the electoral college was because the founding fathers feared that democracy would turn to a form of tyranny, not by actually electing a tyrant, but by mob rule. A faction consisting of more than half the voting population could control the nation.

Federalist Paper 68 discusses the election of the executice office.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Socrato

I had a minor typo which is fixed now.

I'm trying to show that It's an election which consist of collective collaborative states, we are called "United States" Candidates must win 50 separate elections. Each election is won by Popular vote elections from individual states and not the collective number
edit on 13-11-2016 by omniEther because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

Nobody knows about this, it's pathetic.

Key and Peele did an excellent skit on this, hilarious actually.

Popular vote= pretend vote, meaningless.

Electoral college votes= who the ucfk is the Electoral College and decides the election regardless of popular vote.

Although it looks like popular votes determine electoral votes on tv, this is a show.

Stalin knew how ''elections" work. It only matters who COUNTS the votes, they have the power.

Evil madman though he was he was right about that. But our system is older than Stalin and goes back to the founding fathers who never intended to let the masses actually choose the President.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

There is a reason for it.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Malocchio

There is a reason for it.


I'm sure there is a reason, though I doubt it is good or fair.

Doesn't affect me anyway, I don't vote or get favors from politicians and have a permanent steady income.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

It's simple the reason is because we are called the "United States" and not the "United people" a candidate has to win 50 separate elections which are based on popular vote for each state.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

Read my above comment. It explains.


The reason for the electoral college was because the founding fathers feared that democracy would turn to a form of tyranny, not by actually electing a tyrant, but by mob rule. A faction consisting of more than half the voting population could control the nation. 



Federalist Paper 68 discusses the election of the executive office.

edit on 14-11-2016 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)




I could not quote another way as I am on mobile.
edit on 14-11-2016 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
Federalist Paper 68 discusses the election of the executice office.


Federalist No. 10 by Monroe also has some very good insight into the Electoral College.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
When it comes to the electoral college, there can be some improvements made, however, it should not be done away with. The reason is simple, and that is that currently the politicians have to build coalitions and not focus on one group or area.

If it was done by say popular vote, then smaller population states and centers, their votes would not be effective, and the candidates would not have to go visit or campaign there.

Take this for an example: The entire state of Rhode Island is 1.055 million people as of 2014. New York city has 8.406 million people (2013), Los Angeles 3.88 million, and Wyoming has 584, 153 people (2014)
Now if it was by popular vote, the candidate could ignore say Rhode Island and campaign solely in New York City and win, if they took just one city, or ignore the entire state of Wyoming and just campaign in Los Angeles. The elector system prevents that.

However I do believe that the system needs to be modified to reflect the will of the people in a way to show more in line with how the people voted. Take this for example: Trump won Arizona, by 49.5% of the vote and Clinton got 45.4% of the vote. That means that if it was more reflective of such, Trump should get only 5 of the elector votes, Clinton get 4 of the elector votes. And it would allow for the third party candidates to have a real shot at winning the highest office of the land.
And it would mean that now every vote would have to count, with more emphises on people going out and voting.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Wh
However I do believe that the system needs to be modified to reflect the will of the people in a way to show more in line with how the people voted. Take this for example: Trump won Arizona, by 49.5% of the vote and Clinton got 45.4% of the vote. That means that if it was more reflective of such, Trump should get only 5 of the elector votes, Clinton get 4 of the elector votes. And it would allow for the third party candidates to have a real shot at winning the highest office of the land.
And it would mean that now every vote would have to count, with more emphises on people going out and voting.


That is a much more plausible scenario than eliminating the College altogether which would require amending the Constitution.

Each state is free to apportion its delegates as it chooses whether it is proportional or winner take all.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks for the reminder. Had to read some of these papers in an American Govt. and Politics class in the past. I'll give it a read. It makes sense in my opinion. It essentially make it so that there is a split up of power through the states so that a factions power is limited by state borders. Though that statement might not make complete sense. Needs to be given some thought.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: Malocchio

It's simple the reason is because we are called the "United States" and not the "United people" a candidate has to win 50 separate elections which are based on popular vote for each state.


Yeah I really appreciate the info, but I will never be sold on the fairness of the electoral college. don't trust the government or the Federal Reserve, think that the Fed should be abolished and I actually don't care who is President as it matters little and politicians are generally corrupt.

I will always be secure, God bless America!



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Makes total sense to me, I think you get the underlying rationale for the College.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The electoral votes are still weighted by population.



...a candidate has to win 50 separate elections...


Winning all the states isn't required.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

What I don't understand is if the individual state electoral votes are dependent upon the results of the state popular vote, who are the members of the College and what is their use?

I can't lie, no matter how clever it's explained and legit on the surface, I really don't buy that the popular vote determines the decision of the College.

If there was no such thing as the College they could still have a way to determine the electoral votes by state by following the outcome of the election and rewarding the votes to the winning candidate.

Who are the ''Collegiates" of the electoral college and why do they need to be involved in the decision if the votes are determined independently by popular voting results?

Or do they not have members and it's just a term for an otherwise simple system that is not terrible?

Why do people, comedians who generally make fun of the truth who are intelligent like Key and Peele, make seem like the electoral college doesn't need to obey the popular vote.

It's a very common belief that the electoral college at least has the power to ignore the popular vote, but the broadcast results of the election always agree with the popular vote and never, to the best of my knowledge, have they ever gone against popular vote.

What's going on?



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

Most states don't have any law forcing the electors to vote as the popular vote did. They can, in most states, legally go against the popular vote. This I see as both a flaw and an added security. It's a flaw because what if they are bought out by one side? It's a bonus because what if the people are so brainwashed they elect an actual dictator.

I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying, but you're asking why have the electors if they have to vote by the popular vote? Well they don't have to in most states.

I'm not sure if this from Federalist Paper 10 answers your question?


The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:


avalon.law.yale.edu...
edit on 14-11-2016 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

I was not certain if it was or wasn't a requirement to follow the popular vote.

I figured it wasn't, and that that is why we have the College and it was a group of people who are unknown.

I always see the votes being followed and have never seen an electorate go against the popular vote and thought it could be a myth.

But you cleared that up. They have the power but actually haven't abused it in recent history or used it, that I know of.

Which is reassuring I guess.



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join