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

Is the Electoral College a form of disenfranchisement?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Is the Electoral College a form of disenfranchisement?


Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.


As the Electoral College Vote is the actual vote for the President of the United States, and not the Popular Vote, does the existence of the Electoral College constitute a form of disenfranchisement of the voter?

Especially since an Electoral Voter can go back on their pledge for a specific candidate, and vote for another candidate.
edit on 24-11-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Please, for the love of everything holy, get educated on the electoral college and why it works the way it does.

The US isn't a direct democracy and you don't want it to be.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

You seem to think you know what you're talking about, but...

You didn't answer my question.

Thanks for the Off Topic response.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Explaining the how's and whys of the EC would be a pretty long post.

Here is a primer.
connectusfund.org...



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

" does the existence of the Electoral College constitute a form of disenfranchisement of the voter? "



No , to the Contrary , it Insures All 50 States have a Voice in the Process of Electing a President no matter what their Population Densities are , and by Allocating Electoral Votes to the Citizens of said States . It Creates a Fair and Balanced Representation of their Rights under the Constitution .



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Again, thanks for the Off Topic post.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

It's not off topic. Your question is does the EC disenfranchise the voter. The answer is no. The reasons are many and I provided with a sliver of information as to why.

Faithless electors are subject to consequences, in some cases nullifying their vote.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
it Insures All 50 States have a Voice in the Process of Electing a President no matter what their Population Densities are


It gives the States more power, not the individual voter.


Disfranchisement is also termed to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
a reply to: projectvxn

You seem to think you know what you're talking about, but...

You didn't answer my question.

Thanks for the Off Topic response.


The key to answering your question is to understand how and why the EC works.

I suggest you educate yourself on the EC, it's history, and the reasons behind its existence.

It's obvious you haven't bothered to understand the EC. Having your lack of understanding, which is really the basis of this thread, challenged is not off topic. It is wholly on topic.

Don't want your assertions challenged then don't post. Certainly don't whine to me about it. I don't care.
edit on 24 11 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Having your lack of understanding, which is really the basis of this thread, challenged is not off topic.

Don't want your assertions challenged then don't post. Certainly don't whine to me about it. I don't care.


And yet, you STILL haven't answered my question. Not once. When you do, you'll no longer be Off Topic. I sure didn't ask a question ON THIS BOARD, just to be referred to somewhere else. If you don't know how to answer the question, DON'T RESPOND. This is why your response is OFF TOPIC.

And I made no assertions one way other the other. For or Against.

Your Angst and Anger made assertions.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

" It gives the States more power, not the individual voter. "

The Economic and Political Power States have comes Directly from the Voters . Any Individual can Run for Public Office in Any State , therefore your Reasoning here is Mistaken .



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Duplicate Post
edit on 24-11-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
The answer is no.


Yay! An actual On Topic response!



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

No.

The election of the "Chief Magistrate" or president is left to the numerous States. We the People have a greater affect at that level to choose who that may be.


I will say that the deep love of Party has eroded the concept though.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
No.

As I understand it, it ensures that the people of the smaller states actually get their voices heard. So really it's the opposite of disenfranchisement.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Is the Electoral College a form of disenfranchisement?


Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.


As the Electoral College Vote is the actual vote for the President of the United States, and not the Popular Vote, does the existence of the Electoral College constitute a form of disenfranchisement of the voter?

Especially since an Electoral Voter can go back on their pledge for a specific candidate, and vote for another candidate.


Wouldn't it be the opposite?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
No.

Because it faithfully follows the constitution of the United States of America.

And in order to be a legal voter, you must first be a legal citizen, so logic dictates the answer is no.

From the Oath of Allegiance sworn to by all legal immigrants that become US citizens during their ceremony:



that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;


Why are you asking this question?

And what's your opinion? I assume you have one since you posed the question...


edit on 11/24/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
And what's your opinion? I assume you have one since you posed the question...


I had just read an article that a number of Electors have been talked into changing their vote on Dec. 19, and something to me seems very wrong about that. So then I started thinking about disenfranchisement. About taking the power of the vote away from the people, and putting it in the hands of a few.

I understand we are a Representative Democracy and those Electors are representing us.

If they change their vote, are they still Representing us?
edit on 24-11-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Would this be more fair?



I've said this elsewhere....In my view, a key component to real freedom is choice. In this country, we have 50 choices...50 experiments in democracy. Moreover, one state can try something and the rest can learn from it. Diminish the relevance of the states and we destroy what makes our Republic so special.
edit on 24-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Would this be more fair?



Only if we dump Texas and Florida



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join