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

Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

It will Never Happen . You Cannot Take Away any States Rights to be Represented in a Presidential Election . A Democratic Republic Cannot Exist under that Scenario .




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Talking about how the results may have been different if different decisions were made is useless.

More people cast votes for Hillary, in 2008, than they did for Obama.

Did he voluntarily take his name off the ballot costing him votes? Yep. He did.

But, also, Hillary did not campaign in Michigan, because of the primary date issues, and that probably cost her votes, too, even if her name was on the ballot.

Hypothesizing only to Obama's favor is not a valid way of disputing Hillary's popular vote win, in 2008.

We can talk about hypotheticals, all day, but the fact remains: Nearly 300,000 more people cast votes for Hillary Clinton than they did Obama.
edit on 15-11-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BigfootNZ


Call me nuts, but I'm pretty sure we became a Great Nation because we refused to be just like everyone else. We refused to get "on the same page" as the rest of the world.


Why on Earth should we have to do so now? I say (very respectfully) screw that.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

It happens every 4 years, and every 4 years it's shut down because despite how they act in public, most lawmakers are actually reasonable intelligent people. The types of people that can see the value in the Electoral College. The bill will be shot down soon, it probably won't even make it to a vote.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: alphabetaone

It happens every 4 years, and every 4 years it's shut down because despite how they act in public, most lawmakers are actually reasonable intelligent people. The types of people that can see the value in the Electoral College. The bill will be shot down soon, it probably won't even make it to a vote.


Nah, I'm gonna argue with you there. Ive seen my fair share of election cycles, and it doesn't happen every 4 years. In fact it happens significantly less frequently than it happens....for the most part, elections come and go with little incident as far as questioning the EC.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: alphabetaone

It will Never Happen . You Cannot Take Away any States Rights to be Represented in a Presidential Election . A Democratic Republic Cannot Exist under that Scenario .


Isn't that the point?

The people behind all this absolutely do not want a republic.

Unless it has "banana" prefacing it.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   


Looks like they want mob rule democracy as opposed to a stable federal republic


If you consider Americans having their constitutional rights as mob rule than that's your problem.

There wouldn't be elections if the people's votes weren't supposed to be counted.

And there was a ton or outrage about this in 2000 when George Bush stole the election.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
For anyone who is confused, the principal framer of our Constitution was so against the winner take all distribution that he tried to repeatedly pass an amendment to ensure that the 1 to 1 vote was ensured through a proportional distribution.

Also, a case could be made that the current system creates voter inequality as one voter in California ends up with unequal voting power in comparison to one voter from Wyoming. Where a person lives in the country cannot tie someone to a numerical value of voting power any different than a value of 1 because 1 person=1 vote by law. Precedence has been set on this too so its bizarre we're still here.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   



If you consider Americans having their constitutional rights as mob rule than that's your problem.

There wouldn't be elections if the people's votes weren't supposed to be counted.

And there was a ton or outrage about this in 2000 when George Bush stole the election.


The Electoral College system is Constitutional.




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Please point me to the section of the Constitution that guarantees popular national elections of any sort. What's that? You can't find it? That's because it doesn't exist. So what Constitutionally guaranteed right are you squawking about?
edit on 15-11-2016 by Arizonaguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like they want mob rule democracy as opposed to a stable federal republic.


Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
i think every democrat needs to take big time out in the timeout corner for a few weeks before they go trying to make laws lol Oh boohoo you lost an election after having 8 years of Obama bliss. 8 years of any party holding the presidency makes it highly unlikely that the same party will keep the whitehouse in the next election. On top of that the Dems can't even pick up seats to take back control of the house or senate so why don't ya'll step back and lick your wounds a little. If the dem party really was ahead, they would have picked up seats but they didn't so the dems needs to reevaluate all there fixed poll numbers and get their # straight. While your at it, why don't you subtract 3 million + Illegal Alien votes from Hilary before ya start screaming about the popular vote.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BigfootNZ

No you won't, Democrats outnumber Republicans in the US something like 60-40 (+/- 5% depending on the current issues). The Democrats would win every single national election if you went with the popular vote. What's better, having 40% of votes not count in about 35 states, or having 60% of votes across the country not count at all?

The Electoral College gives more of a voice to people, and especially to people in smaller states than a popular vote does. That's the whole reason we have it. Iowa gets to be an important state, and it's something they leverage heavily to get money to flow to their state. If we didn't have the EC would anyone ever care about what Iowa thinks?



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: alphabetaone

This isn't a left or right issue, the electoral college is ancient and should have been replaced 50 years ago.

Trump also has this as part of his first 100 days mantra.

So, it's bipartisan.

~Tenth


And Trump is wrong. Plus, this needs an amendment.

EDIT: Ah it's a bill to introduce an amendment. Needs to get past the Senate and I think the House. As President, all Trump can do is promote it.

Anyone who thinks the EC is out of date needs a civic lesson. The EC is working perfectly.
edit on 15-11-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This is hilarious given it was the left questioning Trump accepting the results and the system if he lost.

Now we have this wide ranging, asinine, petty leftist temper tantrum.

This is an embarrassment to this country.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower



This isn't a left or right issue, the electoral college is ancient and should have been replaced 50 years ago.

Yes , I am back again. Why is it ancient ? Ancient ? Our entire system goes back (somewhat) to the Romans. I call that ancient.
When I see someone post something like this , I have to bring their knowledge of the subject into question. If you even watched , or saw , the end results of the election you would KNOW the reason for the electoral college . Hint coming : or you are for California dominating all Presidential elections .
Read up on it....



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LevelHeaded
a reply to: UKTruth

You're absolutely correct. So by doing away with winner take all, it would force all parties to reevaluate their strategy and message. They would need to focus on all of America instead of the larger population centers. Maybe it would help reduce partisan bickering as a side note.


States don't want to get rid of winner take all though, because that makes them more relevant.

The mid sized states with mixed populations like Ohio become more important in a winner take all system. If they were split, the arguments would happen over the 1-2 EV's that could be influenced. This pushes more value to the smaller states. The ones with 3-10 EV's because then you can gain an EV while reaching a lower population.

For example, Wyoming I think has 3 EV's with a population of only 660k. If you assume 40% voter turnout that means you get 1 EV if you can buy just 88,000 people. That gives all the power to the small states rather than just some of the power as we currently do things. Are you really going to pay attention to Ohio, where you need to win over 1 million people to get 1 EV when you can get that same 1 EV for less than 1/10 the people elsewhere?
edit on 15-11-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone
Everyone hates the electoral college when it doesn't work for them, and love it when it does.

Including Trump!

2012


2016

edit on 15-11-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: alphabetaone
Everyone hates the electoral college when it doesn't work for them, and love it when it does.

Including Trump!

n 2012, Donald Trump tweeted that the electoral college system was a 'disaster for a democracy.'



Amazing how leftists agree with Trump when he says something they like!

Trump was wrong in 2012, Boxer is wrong now. And so is Trump if he still agrees.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

More reason to believe that we are witnessing a critical moment in a long-running plan to get us to consent to abolishing the electoral college -- and Trump is 'in on it.'

Over the next four years, blue states will vote on this amendment and give their consent.

In four years, the republicans will happen to win the popular vote and the democrats will win the electoral vote. Then the red states will vote on it and give their consent, during the following three years.

By the time the seven year deadline is over...our globalist masters running the two parties will have their 3/4 states' votes and the hijacking of our election system will be complete.

...this long-running plan began with the orchestrated 2000 election.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join