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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

There are electors to my knowledge that have gone against the popular vote, but it is very rare and it hasn't altered the outcome. I can't provide a source for that right now so don't take my word for it. I'll try and find a source or you can look into it yourself.

edit on 14-11-2016 by ksiezyc because: Typo




posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Yeah don't trouble yourself, I believe you.



posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

No trouble.


On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[1] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together. The 1836 election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate.


en.wikipedia.org...
www.snopes.com...

I realize the sources may not be the greatest, but this is not a particularly controversial topic(the history of it anyways) and so they should suffice.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Thanks, very illuminating. I have witnessed people argue that the College is completely dependent upon the popular vote, I did not believe them.

So thanks, it's good to know you are not wrong about something mysterious like the E.C.

And to know it hasn't been abused often.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

That was exactly what they feared.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

It is, but it isn't.

Popular vote by each state. The national count means absolutely nothing.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Even by state there are the faithless electors as more states lack laws enforcing popular rule onto the elector's vote.
May have misunderstood.
edit on 15-11-2016 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Yes, but it really doesn't happen even remotely often enough to really matter.

Should it happen to such a point as to actually effect the outcome, you'll see blood in the street, and not necessarily metaphorically.

That is what is so scary about these idiots, and they're nothing less than idiots, advocating just that. Calling it the death of the Republic isn't too strong a thing to say.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Agreed. People, in particular the young, do not understand the reasoning behind the existence of the electoral college and view it as a barrier from being a democracy and it is, but a constitutional republic based on democratic ideals is much preferable to a democracy that could turn into a tyranny.

I would not be surprised to find that there are petitions for electors to ignore the popular vote of some states. Understanding the election process and the reasoning should be necessary much in the same way gun safety is necessary to own a firearm.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join