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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You could always move to California. I understand they are trying to leave.




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Annee

You could always move to California. I understand they are trying to leave.




Oh, Look! I can see a big body of water from my front window?

Could it be the Pacific Ocean?



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Would this be more fair?


As your pic implies, with the Electoral College, each State gets more power, not the individual voter.

The problem is that we give a damn how each State votes and not the population as a whole.

The winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral Votes is concerning me. Trump got 43% of the vote in Illinois, but Hillary won in Illinois.

That's 43% of the voting people of Illinois that just lost their voice in the Presidential Election. Gone. Like they never voted.

Does that sound fair?

Disenfranchisement has nothing to do with States and everything to do with individual voters.
edit on 24-11-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

See? Things are looking up for you. We can amend my other post to 49 choices when the time is appropriate.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Um the pic is without the EC. It's sized based upon population. So in other words, only four states would matter and the other 46 can go pound sand.

That sounds real fair.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Um the pic is without the EC. It's sized based upon population. So in other words, only four states would matter and the other 46 can go pound sand.


That's why I said 'your pic implies'.

Disenfranchisement has to do with individual voters.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc

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?


Now that's a different question entirely.

My answer would be - No - they are not, nor are they doing their duty ethically, morally and in some cases legally.

And if there's any doubt - please see previous post on topic...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11/24/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Now that's a different question entirely.

My answer would be - No - they are not, nor are they doing their duty ethically, morally and in some cases legally.


Is that a form of Disenfranchisement then? Or is it something else completely?

I think I might have two different questions going here.
edit on 24-11-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Now that's a different question entirely.

My answer would be - No - they are not, nor are they doing their duty ethically, morally and in some cases legally.


Is that a form of Disenfranchisement then? Or is it something else completely?

I think I might have two different questions going here.


LOL!

This place will do that to you at times...




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Why would a participant in a nationwide wager be disenfranchised with the outcome?

If you play a game, you will either win or lose. We play the game knowing we will win or lose.

Is losing a game a form of disenfranchisement?

Nope. It's just losing.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

THis has been rehashed ad nauseum. The federal government has no right to administer elections. That is a state right, because (despite the federalist nonsense you are taught and groomed on) the states are akin to their own nations. If you use the term "state" outside the US, you typically refer to a nation.


Our country is basically a more tightly bound European Union, with each state retaining some level of autonomy. The federal government holds the electoral college so that once the states all get their votes counted and done, they can then reports to the electoral college, using a similar weighting system that we use for the House of Representatives.

Removing the electoral college would crap all over states rights, and impose a tyranny o the majority on people living in rural areas. That is unconstitutional in and of itself.

If you understand the system, it makes it much esier to criticize.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Disclaimer: Not American (and can't stand either of the last two candidates) so my point is not about the result.

Isn't the biggest issue that in reality a lot of states always vote the same way or at least can be predicted well in advance. This means that if you are voter in these states your vote is more or less irrelevant?

Presidental campaigns are won or lost in a hand full of swing states with high enough EC votes. Candidates could completely forgot ignore 40 of the states and and still win?
edit on 24-11-2016 by ScepticScot because: Typo

edit on 24-11-2016 by ScepticScot because: Random emoticon



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

You are correct. Some states, like Ill and NY face their own tyranny of the majority, as their major cities go far more liberal than the rest of the states tends to do.

But removing the electoral college would simply push that tyranny of the majority out to the national level. And I can guarantee the people who actually produce things for the nation (the rural folks) would be willing to start a civil war over it.



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

originally posted by: Riffrafter
This place will do that to you at times...


Maybe I should look it over in the morning.

Thanks!



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

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Now that's a different question entirely.

My answer would be - No - they are not, nor are they doing their duty ethically, morally and in some cases legally.


Is that a form of Disenfranchisement then? Or is it something else completely?

I think I might have two different questions going here.


Maybe it is the misuse of the word disenfranchised that is hanging this thread up. No one that is Constitiounally or via State law allowed to vote denied in the case of the Electoral College.

Disenfranchisement is the revocation of the ability to vote. People of the various States voted freely



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

You are correct. Some states, like Ill and NY face their own tyranny of the majority, as their major cities go far more liberal than the rest of the states tends to do.

But removing the electoral college would simply push that tyranny of the majority out to the national level. And I can guarantee the people who actually produce things for the nation (the rural folks) would be willing to start a civil war over it.


Aren't EC votes still loosely based on population?

And as pretty much all states are mixed rural population centres so wouldn't you need to break down to a lower level (county/city) to protect rural voters properly?

Genuine questions and I agree with your comparison about states as nations.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Aren't EC votes still loosely based on population?


The number of Electors is based on population per State, but the votes from the Electors are winner-take-all per State. Trump got 43% of the vote in Illinois, but Clinton won the majority in Illinois, so Clinton got all of the Electoral Votes for Illinois. And 43% of the Illinois votes just 'disappeared' like they never happened.

And two States in the country don't even use the Electoral College system.
edit on 24-11-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

They are based on population.

The thing is, as we saw in the last election....half the nation lives on 5% of the landmass

Its not a perfect system. If one could be created, that would be great.
But a popular vote system would guarantee the "Secede Texas" movement would gain momentum here. We use NY as a joke, and we spit when we say California. So you can imagine how well we'd take a national tyranny of the majority.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Aren't EC votes still loosely based on population?


The number of Electors is based on population per State, but the votes from the Electors are winner-take-all per State. Trump got 43% of the vote in Illinois, but Clinton won the majority in Illinois, so Clinton got all of the Electoral Votes for Illinois. And 43% of the Illinois votes just 'disappeared' like they never happened.

And two States in the country don't even use the Electoral College system.


It's not winner take all in all states. Maine for instance can split electors based on voting precinct or county or something. There may be others too...



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

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


Yes. The EC was never meant to reflect the will of individual citizen votes, it wasn't ever meant to reflect the will of individual states.

The EC was developed as more of a parliamentary election where citizens would vote for electors and the electors would vote for the president. Except now, the parties vote for the electors.

It's an absolute form of disenfranchisement for Republican voters in blue states and Democratic voters in red states. Moreover, why should anyone bother voting for president when we've seen, in numerous elections, that electors can just vote however they want...voters be damned.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join