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

The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.

page: 23
21
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by BrokedownChevy removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

The framers actually wanted to avoid a pure democracy at all costs. Its why we have a Constitutional representative republic. They also felt a popular vote would be Tyranny by majority. Thats why they gave us the electoral college. Without it a few states could elect a president and that means those running for President would only campaign in / speak to the issues that affect only the people in those states.

The electoral college ensures a person running for president would have to gain the support of the nation. It forces the person to deal with issues across the nation instead of just a few states.

The electoral college has worked since its founding. Only 5 president out of 45 have won the electoral and lost the popular. A good track record I would say.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

Good luck getting enough members in both houses to agree to reject electoral votes after a limited 2 hour debate.


It probably would not be that difficult if 37 votes flipped.

The point is that if the votes are nullified, they go to nobody... Clinton gains nothing, Trump loses votes.

I believe that electors flipping their votes because they have been intimidated by death threats and what not would be more than enough justification to nullify flipped votes.

In other words... it is just as likely that any significant amount of flipped votes will be nullified as it is there would even be enough to make a difference anyways.

Like I said...I pray and hope that at least 36 votes are flipped...won't change the election but it would spark changes to the way states allow their EC votes to be cast.

The whole point is that with all the talk on the MSM about the effort to get EC votes flipped, they always forget to tell people that Congress has the power to nullify EC votes.... flipped votes and efforts to nullify EC votes are both rare occurrences.

The vast majority of people are not even aware that Congress has that power.

Those people who are placing all their bets on the EC votes getting flipped to give Clinton 270 (like the OP), do not realize that all those flipped votes have to slide through Congress without any objections and without being nullified. I am sure there would be massive amounts of objections.
edit on R102016-11-30T07:10:43-06:00k1011Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-11-30T07:20:52-06:00k2011Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not placing my bets on anything, and I don't suggest that the Electors can change things without being challenged or defeated.

That said, I believe there is plenty of reason for Electors to vote in favor of Clinton. Let the vote get challenged, let people fight about it.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not placing my bets on anything, and I don't suggest that the Electors can change things without being challenged or defeated.

That said, I believe there is plenty of reason for Electors to vote in favor of Clinton. Let the vote get challenged, let people fight about it.


You are still ignoring the fact that the people won't have anything to say about it...

Congress will elect the president under disputed conditions as provided under the law. Congress will elect Trump in any dispute. Politicians have jobs..if they vote to flip... they will lose their next election.
edit on R202016-11-30T09:20:39-06:00k2011Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy

originally posted by: keenmachine

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: keenmachine

Hillary didn't excite enough people but she wasn't bad... and she certainly isn't the Nazi Trump is. And I don't really care if you feel understood. Like a petulant little child who voted the bad guy, no matter how bad he got, just to prove you were willing to throw it all away. Nothing to respect there. It's pretty dumb actually. To basically say, I don't care about what's right or wrong or good or evil, I'll vote for the racist, xenophobic hate monger who promises all manner of pain -- just to throw that fit.

You can't make that move and expect to be called smart. You can't regurgitate fake news headlines and expect to be respected.

You guys are willing to trash the country because you thought it was so bad-- and now that we have commander in douche, ready to deport and racially profile and the White Supremacists are happy... you look at those who are hurting at what was lost-- how low Trump's supporters were willing to go.... and it's really sad, really pathetic and dumb.

And the childish threats-- if you keep calling us stupid we'll Keep doing it! What a little spoiled sh#t.


I can tick off at least 5 things in your post that is regurgitating fake news headlines -
1. Trump is a Nazi
2. Trump is a racist
3. Trump is xenophobic
4. Trump is a hate monger
5. Trump likes White Supremacists to be happy

Each post you type in this whopper of a thread you made, gets goofier by the minute and it shows how low Hillary supporters are willing to go.
You are really fu*king grasping at straws, hoping and praying that your Queen will somehow reach the White House, which by the way, she did nothing in 30 years to merit getting there. She doesn't merit cleaning the toilets in the WH.
It's really sad, really pathetic and really, really dumb.
Who is willing to trash the country? The Libtard Dems, that's who....you should feel really lucky that she got the votes that she did and get on with your lives under President Trump....he will help all Americans, even mentally ill Liberals.


you hit the nail on the head and yet someone a page or two ago referred to his or her posts as logic. these threads will get us no where. The hillary supporters will always consider themselves the intelligent, informed, enlightened logical thinkers and trump supporters followers of fake news as well as many of the colorful names that have been used in this thread. On top of that they will never see their hypocritical behavior calling me a spoiled sh#t. The sheer desperation reeks and gets worse by the day.


Ok. For the sake of clarity, I must first ask, are you illiterate? I was the one who said a proportional vote was logical. It has nothing to do with Hillary. It's called a fair voting system that the core framer of our Constitution wanted so badly. Dude, you want to talk about desperate? Its morons like you. Morons who can't grasp a simple concept and must eternally revert to yelling about Hillary Clinton. Desperation is avoiding the obvious fact that our electoral system is not working correctly and has not worked for a long time all for the sake of needing to say that you won. Are you a baby who is afraid of having his rattle taken away or are you a thoughtful human being who can admit that republicans in California deserve to have their votes count just as much as democrats from Kentucky? Perhaps you sit on your ass all day avoiding your own problems as long as the only people who end up getting bitten aren't you.

Honestly, the lack of reading comprehension is astounding on ATS. I'm being to think that conspiracy theorists aren't well educated...


was actually referring to another poster who told the op that logic has no place in this thread. It was a poster who has insulted the intelligence of anyone who didn't see things there way the same way op has done. If our electoral system is broken should it not be fixed before the next election or before future elections and not addressed by trying to vote in a candidate that lost under the current system. That is what this op is about right? And somehow that makes me the desperate one? If you want a system to change you work to change it, and not only after your candidate of choice unexpectedly loses under the current one by simply ignoring it and voting her in anyway.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
These numbers should SHUT UP liberals about the Electoral College once and for all


Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.


Click link for full article.




There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

The last time congress tried to nullify electoral votes was with Bush. They tried to erase the electoral votes from Ohio - it failed.

As I said though if no candidate receives 270 electoral votes the House decides and not the electoral college. So I ask - who do you think the Republicans will choose - Clinton or Trump?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

So I ask - who do you think the Republicans will choose - Clinton or Trump?


Clinton for President, Pence for Vice President. That should heal the divide.

Make the parties work closely together.

It would be a "bold" new experiment.



edit on 30-11-2016 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

So I ask - who do you think the Republicans will choose - Clinton or Trump?


Clinton for President, Pence for Vice President. That should heal the divide.

Make the parties work closely together.

It would be a "bold" new experiment.




LOL thats pretty funny and it would actually increase the divide and not heal it.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It makes sense when you put it in writing, but as today is a few states that wants to pass laws and some has done it where they decide to who they will allocate their electoral votes with disregard of who wins the states.

Some argue that states have the right, still when it comes to voters right I expect the issue if come to get more states to agree with it, to be debated as the legality under the constitution.

Let see what happen.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

The last time congress tried to nullify electoral votes was with Bush. They tried to erase the electoral votes from Ohio - it failed.

As I said though if no candidate receives 270 electoral votes the House decides and not the electoral college. So I ask - who do you think the Republicans will choose - Clinton or Trump?


If that's how it goes down, so be it. I still say the Electors should vote in favor of the Popular Vote which every day looks more and more like the Sane Vote.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Certainly a valid opinion. I prefer to use the system the founding fathers put into place. The one that recognizes the dangers of a pure democracy and tyrannical rule by the majority.

Democrats loosing an election and simply not liking Trump is not a valid reason to violate the state laws, party guideline nor the intent of the founding fathers.

Here is what will happen. Clinton is chosen by the EC because people dont like the fact they lost. In the next election cycle it happens again, this time in the favor of someone other than Clinton. What then?

What will be the excuse to once again make changes because the very action you support was used against you? As an example of that look at the powers Trump will inherit from Obama. Look at how the Senate will work using democrat changes from when they were in office.

Lets see how long it takes before Democrats start whining, now that the Republicans control 2 out of 3 branches of government, about Trump / Republicans using the very rules put in place by Obama and Democrats.

Finally the US does not elect the President based on the national popular vote.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

The count and certification by Congress occurs on the 6th and given history we know who won.


No. Given history, we know who is most likely to win. Who won cannot be determined at this time.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

LOL ok.. you keep holding onto that pipe dream.

We knew on Nov 8th.
It will be confirmed on Dec 19th.
Jan 6th is a certification of the results.

Repeat after me -
President Trump and private citizen Hillary Clinton.

so when you are proven wrong what comes next?
edit on 30-11-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

It tends to look bad when the loser is the candidate of choice, but when the candidate of choice happens to win, people are all for the electoral votes.

Since I have been voting that means as back as 1978, I have seen the issue of the electoral votes unfairness back and forward.

Even I was against it at one time when my favorite candidate lost the elections but not the popular vote, darn it sounded too unfair.

But the truth is that it works, it actually have an advantage it gives a voice to voters that otherwise will not get a voice if popular vote was dominated by a few dense populated areas.

In the last 5 elections democrats has gotten the popular vote, they control some dense areas of populations in states even if they don't win the state.

Will it be fair that they get the presidency like that?, then why to have elections for.

No, electoral votes make sense.

The forefathers were geniuses.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Historically the electors votes for the electoral majority winner.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Michigan has some densely populated Democratic areas but they didn't turn out to vote and now they paid for it.

if the election people are corrupt in Michigan they will still find a way to get some of those Democrat votes added into the mix now.. just like they create dead people to vote.

edit on 11/30/2016 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

It is funny you mention that, I had a very good friend that is a lawyer and a die hard democrat, he hide for a week after Hillary lost, but I was nice and didn't make an issue of the lost, hell the day of elections when he asked me if I voted I said yes but I knew that it didn't matter because I knew Hillary will win, he is like a walking encyclopedia that is why I love to have coffee with him and chat, he tells me that only about 63% of the population in the US of registered citizens votes.

Now for a country like the US that is a leader in the democratic system that is unthinkable.

I wonder why we have one of the lowest voting turns out in the civilized world.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: spiritualzombie

The forefathers were geniuses.



Donald Trump doesn't think so. He would abridge the right to free speech. Burn the flag, he says, and lose citizenship or go to jail. Give him bad press, he says, and he'll sue as a private citizen, and change the laws to shackle the media when President. Already, some US websites are moving abroad, to protect their content from a Trump Presidency.

Archive org moves to Canada on fears of Trump!

Trump is accustomed to getting his way, and gets terribly upset when he doesn't. He love to make instant "tweets" and then sit back and watch all the TV shows spend hours running shows on what he just "tweeted." He's like a kid with a new toy. Wait till he gets his stubby fingers on the nuclear buttons. He's likely to just push them to see what happens. It's just another toy to play with. Just bigger than his twitter account. The whole world is now at the mercy of a big fluffy kid with terribly itchy fingers, who likes to push buttons just to see the effects.

May God help us all.

What's coming cannot be spoken out loud.


edit on 30-11-2016 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join