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

Popular Vote vs Electoral College: Trump Won The Country, While Clinton Won The Major Cities

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Konduit

He won fair and square. People should just accept it.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.


If the states allocated electoral votes, I think Trump would have an even larger winning margin of the electoral votes.
Look at the states that Hillary won. Most of them have huge sections of Red.
Now look at the states that Trump won. Very little Blue in those states, if any




What good does 300 square miles of red do you..


When like 10 people live in it.

Those 10 people hardly even run into anything dealing with the government outside of taxes and potentially environmental laws.

They police themselves.

Trump supporters get all giddy when they see all that red..

But don't realize the population density is so low.. that those little specs of blue are all we need to have more votes.



Those specs didn't work out. Obama said one blue spec, Detroit, would not go bankrupt. Hello! Worse bankrupt city of all time! Not even close. All the specs are complete failures. All of them. Just a mess. Crime, drugs, murder. Own it if that's what you want. There is a better way.
edit on 15-11-2016 by LifeMode because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

All that nonsense and you still wonder why HRC didn't win. Please open your eyes.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
You know what's frustrating. Being anti-electoral college..

When I get in debates on facebook about the issue, those who are in favor of it straw man the hell out of me (at least I think that's how I would refer to it)

When it gets brought up (the abolition of the elecoral college).. they always say..

"You must not understand the electoral college.. here's why we have it.."

And

"We aren't a pure Democracy, we're a democratic republic"


They don't realize I am not arguing what we are currently.

I am arguing for what many of us want us to become.

I want to change it.

It's not that I don't understand it or the reasoning.

It's that I believe it is antiquated and no longer valid given are new socioeconomic climate.



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

They don't realize I am not arguing what we are currently.

I am arguing for what many of us want us to become.


Why would you want a Pure Democracy?

I'm a Hillary supporter. I'd love if they found a way for her to win.

But, as much as I wish the Electoral College would go away - - this election.

I understand the need for a Representative Democracy.

And no it is not obsolete yet. We still have large, sparsely populated areas that need equal representation.


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



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
So congressional seats are awarded based on the most recent census data (by population) and electoral votes are based on congressional seats but electoral votes are all or nothing in all but two states.

I know nothing of constitutional law, but I wonder what brought that about in the founding father debates? The all our nothing part. Or, if they left it open which is why two states do it different?



posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr

Oh, I see @theantediluvian has already pointed out that the states have freedom to choose.

Thanks for that data.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
One thing that many people forget is that this isn't just a country, it is a Union of States.

Edit:

Then for those who say that the electoral college isn't fair, the majority of Americans did not vote for Hillary (popular vote of Trump and all other votes is about 52%). So how would it be fair if Hillary were given presidency when the majority of Americans that voted did not vote for her?
edit on 16-11-2016 by Kuroodo because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

The problem with a pure Democracy is that 51% have control over the other 49%, or as some people elegantly put it, two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner.

What America has is a Democratic Republic, which is a union of governing bodies (States) each with a fair and equal representation for their interests.

As Blaine91555 stated earlier, the country is called The United States for a reason. If you tried to force another form of governance on the states at a federal level that doesn't suit their interests, I guarantee many of them would secede and we wouldn't have a country anymore.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Soooo... 49% having control over the 51% is better?



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

No.

The majority of voters (53%) who rejected Hillary having their vote respected by the 47% minority who voted for Hillary is better.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   
In the Major cities, residents owe a lot to the Democrats. Taxes are low, crime is low, the water is pristine, and Uber is less than 5 minutes away. That's why they voted for a white Obama in a pantsuit.

People outside the cities are sufferin bigly. Pig poaching is at an all-time high. Cow farts are destroying rural ozone. And Uber won't drive down dirt roads. That's why they voted for Trump... FOR CHANGE.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.


No mandate?
The house, senate and the executive is majority Republican and the Supreme Court will soon lean conservative.
Trump has a bigger mandate than any Republican leadership in years.

By the way, the majority of people who voted did NOT vote for her. Her votes were a minority.

edit on 16/11/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Clinton has more votes. The majority of people who voted voted for her. He has the Electoral College, maybe, but he has NO mandate.


It doesn't matter what he has. It's good politics to claim he has one. Whose going to stop him, the 49 Democrats in the Senate?



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Konduit

Soooo... 49% having control over the 51% is better?


That's not how the system works.
There is no complete control in the hands of one party or group.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Change the system so that a simple majority is enough. Trump will win re-election easily in 2020, and his Republican replacement in 2024 too!



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

1. Land doesn't vote. So maps like these are irrelevant.

2. People vote and massive amounts of Americans live in big cities. For example, Memphis TN alone has more Americans than the entire state of Wyoming. And some of the largest cities have more Americans than several states combined. But that doesn't show up in maps like these, hence their irrelevancy.

Here's an even simpler example. I'm in a pretty large metropolis right now. Our city is unofficially divided into North side, South side, East side, and West side (I'm in the South side). So why am I boring you by saying this? The South Side of my city alone has more Americans than the 18 least populated counties in my state combined!

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



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Konduit

1. Land doesn't vote. So maps like these are irrelevant.

2. People vote and massive amounts of Americans live in big cities. For example, Memphis TN alone has more Americans than the entire state of Wyoming. And some of the largest cities have more Americans than several states combined. But that doesn't show up in maps like these, hence their irrelevancy.

Here's an even simpler example. I'm in a pretty large metropolis right now. Our city is unofficially divided into North side, South side, East side, and West side (I'm in the South side). So why am I boring you by saying this? The South Side of my city alone has more Americans than the 18 least populated counties in my state combined!


So?
There is a reason that the electoral system limits the effect of mob rule.
It's a blessing that a strategy of putting more people in inner cities and making them dependent on the state did not swing the election and accelerate the race to the bottom.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Change the system so that a simple majority is enough. Trump will win re-election easily in 2020, and his Republican replacement in 2024 too!


Trump is probably going to be too old to get a second term. He's 70 now right? That would make him 74 when he gets out of office. Remember the questions of Bernie's age? That guy was 72.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: carewemust
Change the system so that a simple majority is enough. Trump will win re-election easily in 2020, and his Republican replacement in 2024 too!


Trump is probably going to be too old to get a second term. He's 70 now right? That would make him 74 when he gets out of office. Remember the questions of Bernie's age? That guy was 72.


Agree. I don't think he will run a second term.



posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I agree. I didn't vote but a vote for Trump in CA really wouldn't have mattered. I might be more inspired to vote if the electoral votes were split.

I used to be completely against the electoral college, but this election has shown me how it helps balance the States power. But every vote should count. A vote for Trump in CA was meaningless.


Well, Trump won 33% of California.
Your response makes me wonder how many Trump supporters stayed home in CA just because they had no hope.
Maybe if you and everyone else had actually voted, you could have tipped that up another 18%?

I live in a swing state - PA.
For years it has always been blue. Some people do start to give up hope of voting, but this year I know that many voted for the first time, because they felt it was important. And we tipped PA to be the state that put Trump over the 270 on election night.

I think the electoral college would work fine, as long as people realize that their vote does still count, and still get out and vote.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join