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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
While in theory it may seem like a good idea, the reality is that this is one of the absolutely worst ideas that can be done.

The Electoral College is one of the better ideas that the founding fathers came up with. The idea being that if a candidate wins a state, that the electors from that state will cast a vote for him showing the will of the people. However, as it is being shown, sometimes it is not always the best idea, or the elector decides to change his mind and goes against the people who put him or her in that position.

To do away with this system would be far more worse for the country, than they could even guess, and here is why.

If it was just done by popular vote, then why would a candidate go to some of the smaller states or even reach out to say the rural areas? Think about it, the areas that have the biggest population would get all of the attention from the candidates, and those states which would have a smaller population, like Wyoming or Rhode Island, would not be visited or looked at, or done as a second thought.

Personally I would like to see the rules of the College changed to where it was more reflective of the population, and proportionate of the actual votes cast. It would show more of the will of the people, than that of the current system. There are too many states where it is winner take all, and that is where we are seeing that the person who got the popular vote is not the President and to change that the system must be tweaked.

Also by making the electoral votes proportionate then it would allow for a third party candidate to have a real shot at being President of the USA. Consider this:
Clinton won California. But if it was Proportionate, then only 62% of the electoral votes would go to her, 33% would have gone to trump, and 3% to Johnson. And in Texas, where Trump won, under this system: Trump would have gotten 52% of the electoral votes, Clinton would have gotten 43% and Johnson would have gotten 3%.
This would have an effect far more changing than what it is now, now every vote would have a sense of counting, and be more encouraging for people to vote. Also it would start to change the mindset of politicians, where they need to votes and discourage things like voter suppression, that was very evident in some states.
I also believe that it should be law that all those eligible to vote should have to vote, or have a penalty for not doing such as well.




posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
It's funny how the dems are such sore losers
they would of never considered this if Hillary won, or why haven't they tried to abolish the electoral college before the election?
I for one also think the electoral college should be abolished and the popular vote should be rule of Law, but come on, the dems who are pushing this are such whinny little babies. Either get on board with your commander in chief, Or if you hate an American with trump as POTUS then your more then welcomed to move to a country where your leader is more in line with you values and beliefs.
edit on 16-11-2016 by Matt11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Matt11

I don't see the need to insult anyone on this issue. It's a decision that could effect both sides negatively.

As a person who voted for Hillary AND Gore and felt the EC upset of both, I'm not convinced the EC should be abolished. To introduce this now is extremely reactionary. Too many emotions right now potentially clouding critical thinking.

People have been talking for awhile now about this. Every election people say their vote doesn't count; so it's worthy of debate.

On the fence. The idea of a pure population numbers game seems potentially unwise.


edit on 16-11-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
This is ridiculous sour grapes nonsense with no regard for the good of the country.


When was the last time that the Left was interested in the good of the country??

This is a typical ploy...designed to wrest even more control from the average citizen. Hegemony...that's the goal here.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Only in America would a bunch of idiots want to slice away the Electoral College but say nothing about the Federal Reserve.
The instant a popular vote is against a candidate they support they'll want to take out voting, just scrap elections altogether.
Why not? I say the smart Americans flee and let these idiots have a worse dictatorship than Germany pre-WW2.
Seems reasonable.
edit on fWednesdayAmerica/Chicago1410699 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig
Americans have the freedom to not vote.
Freedom of choice was, like, the whole point of its birth.

If it went by popular vote no candidate would leave California or New York. Those two states would determine all elections.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699

Exactly. However, the question of if a person should or should not have the freedom to vote is one that should be more carefully considered.

In this past election, it has become far more apparent the lack of people voting made for a more problem these days than not. When 40% of the population who is eligible to vote, the question must be asked as to why they did not cast a ballot and what can the country do to make it either easier or encourage all of the voting population to get up and actually cast a ballot.

While yes there is the freedom of choice and to or not to cast a vote, one would think that some of those who came before us, those words would ring far more important than anything else, this is a government of for and by the people. And some of them do not vote, it could be an issue.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
While yes there is the freedom of choice and to or not to cast a vote, one would think that some of those who came before us, those words would ring far more important than anything else, this is a government of for and by the people. And some of them do not vote, it could be an issue.


Well, what's the alternative?

Forcing people at gunpoint to have an opinion and cast a ballot against their better judgement? That's a bigger issue to me.
edit on 16-11-2016 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jansy

originally posted by: Greggers
This is ridiculous sour grapes nonsense with no regard for the good of the country.


When was the last time that the Left was interested in the good of the country??

This is a typical ploy...designed to wrest even more control from the average citizen. Hegemony...that's the goal here.


When was the last time either party was interested in the good of the country?

Both parties are bought and paid for by the wealthy elite.

Everyday citizens have a "negligible, nearly zero impact on policy," according to recent study.
edit on 16-11-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig
Perhaps, but if Hillary is 'truly' the popular vote the majority of people that voted can't be that bright. Which is the whole reason why the Electoral College is in the constitution, because the majority can't be trusted to elect decent leaders.
In this Age, where the majority--not silent majority--are dumb enough to be swayed by a corrupted media the last thing we need is a cutting of the Electoral College.


edit on fWednesdayAmerica/Chicago2012699 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
if this were to pass, i'd have nothing compelling me to participate any more. My culture out here in the desert southwest would be kicked and trampled by the whims of 5 major cities. I guess choosing to not live in NYC won't save me from having to deal with their brand of politics at a federal level, huh?

3 weeks ago i felt fully engaged in what was going on. I've not had a horse in the race for POTUS in a long time, and despite this i've always felt like i have some protection against encroaching urbanism by virtue of the state I live in. Today, I see significant threat to this, and a looming disenfranchisement.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I feel your pain. Ive lived almost everywhere someone CAN live in this country at one period or another...I have gotten a unique perspective to many cultures due to this and I honestly feel the plight of almost all people concerned.


I honestly envy you though, I wish I could easily make a move to a more arid somewhat urban location.


If this would ever grow legs (the abolish the EC idea) it would only exacerbate that need.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
If anyone has a legitimate beef with the EC, it would be someone like me. I am a red voter in a state that will always vote blue. Talk about your vote not counting. However, I vote in every election and don't feel disenfranchised in any way. Even though my state will never reflect my opinions in a presidential race, I understand that the EC is the best way to represent the opinions of the country as a whole, for the reasons already stated above by members more eloquent than myself.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Didn't Trump also want rid of the EC?.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: makaira1985
If anyone has a legitimate beef with the EC, it would be someone like me. I am a red voter in a state that will always vote blue. Talk about your vote not counting. However, I vote in every election and don't feel disenfranchised in any way. Even though my state will never reflect my opinions in a presidential race, I understand that the EC is the best way to represent the opinions of the country as a whole, for the reasons already stated above by members more eloquent than myself.


I know exactly how you feel...I live in rural MA and the whole state goes blue regardless which nullifies my vote when I choose to vote Republican



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

In Australia, they have mandatory vote, failure to vote in elections will result in a fine against the person. There are exceptions to the rule, where a person could not be voting and thus avoiding the fine.

But the system needs to be more reflective of the people, and to be more welcoming and encouraging for people to vote. Right now, there far too many states are working to stop people from voting.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Very true also very telling when you see where the most poll booths shut.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
New Jersey here....(the good part)


originally posted by: Darkphoenix77

originally posted by: makaira1985
If anyone has a legitimate beef with the EC, it would be someone like me. I am a red voter in a state that will always vote blue. Talk about your vote not counting. However, I vote in every election and don't feel disenfranchised in any way. Even though my state will never reflect my opinions in a presidential race, I understand that the EC is the best way to represent the opinions of the country as a whole, for the reasons already stated above by members more eloquent than myself.


I know exactly how you feel...I live in rural MA and the whole state goes blue regardless which nullifies my vote when I choose to vote Republican



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Next elections if they still lose on the popular vote, will they abolish it too? lol...



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Barbara Boxer is borderline psychotic. The old fossil does not even realize that career politicians like her are exactly who we voted against. ~$heopleNation




top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join