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

8 New Reasons The Electoral College Shouldn’t Vote For Trump (Huff Post)

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh you were serious?

Still add it, that is all it was missing.




Then you should work on improving your sarcasm detection


You seriously need to work on your sarcasm detection.





posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

The majority of most states said their piece.

And to be honest, I don't want it to come down to popular vote. Most Americans don't vote, so either they don't care or don't know. Then if you look at most of the ones who do "know", all of their "information comes from MSM, which is proven to be blatantly biased.

When Americans take an interest in governing this country and show up to vote not just for presidential election but all others I'll humor your point.

As it a stands we have an apathetic populace so I want balance and checks before that responsibility is granted to everyone.
edit on 26-11-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

We would still have the Electoral college. Just if a state has 10 votes and only 51% of that state voted for a candidate why should ALL 10 votes go to that candidate?

If it was split 6/4 then it would actually be more representative of the people's choice. A true "representative republic".

It's the same as what you guys don't want but on a state basis. Why should a populated area of a state rule the entire vote of the state? It's the same argument you guys are making but on a smaller scale......




posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

You have a point, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

That being said, this election was campaigned by both sides to try and win the electoral.

And the side that spent a fraction of the other squeaked by with the win.

If the coin was flipped would you be in this forum arguing against electoral college?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur
Very very simplistic statements.

How would you suggest you keep the states with less populations from being run over by heavily pop states?
Would you suggest a co-presidency between HRC and Trump?
How would you get support for the constitutional convention?



I think I was pretty clear above.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The huffington post is not news.



There’s nothing worse ― or less presidential ― than a sore loser.


HuffPo: Trump’s Refusal To Accept Election Results Has Americans Fuming



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was tempted to start email blasting this story to HuffPost. Then I realized they're skidmarks not worth my time.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

The election wasn't stolen by anyone. Trump won the electoral college by a landslide. aka won the game by the rules all candidates were aware of.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Who makes up BS like this? How do you make a thread out of such slop like SCREW Huff Post as anything real.

Huff is only here because americans have been dumbed down.


edit on 26-11-2016 by Logarock because: n



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

Why is it so flipping hard to understand people! Lets say there were 5 states, 1 state had 5 million people, the other 4 states only had 1 million each.

Lets say state one, all 5 million people voted for the same person, and the other 4 states all voted for the other person. Thats 5 million votes against 4 million votes.

BUT, the 4 million votes candidate wins because it is 4 states against 1 state, does that make sense to you? Would you want 1 state being able to control and make decisions for the other 4 states? Im pretty sure they wouldnt.

The electoral college is in place so that EVERY state has a fair say to who gets elected, just because 1 single state (california) has wayyyyyyyyyy more people, doesnt mean california gets to pick the president, thats just downright idiotic, does this make sense to you guys yet?

If it doesnt, then there is no way to get through to you people and you are obviously butthurt about clinton losing.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlbanArthur
a reply to: CriticalStinker

We would still have the Electoral college. Just if a state has 10 votes and only 51% of that state voted for a candidate why should ALL 10 votes go to that candidate?



That would still be a reflection of popular vote which the EC is made a governor of. Cant win the state you get zero, protects the whole. Sort of paradoxical.

We have been schooled we had a democracy and have taken part in many such votes from sand lot football to PTA ect......but thats not how it works at the critical national level, when dealing with large and small interests and sovereign states.
edit on 26-11-2016 by Logarock because: n



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
One would think that liberals would not complain about the EC as it protects, insures the smaller get a voice......and enough smaller voices drowned the larger self interested blow hards.

One can see the hand of Madison here. Madison didn't like the power of monopoly. Many conservatives don't like that about him and the libs apparently don't as well.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Not every state is a winner take all regarding their electors. Maine for instance awards their electoral vote proportionately. Other states may too.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal

6. The Trump University settlement shines a new spotlight on Trump’s unethical business practices.

I would disagree that this is a non-issue. This is absolutely an issue, and it would have been with Hillary as well (would HuffPo have cared if winners had been reversed, no; but the issue being widespread and universal to all candidates doesn't make it a non-issue. It illustrates a serious cancer in the system


5. Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of trustworthiness by immediately abandoning campaign promises.

Again, this is absolutely an issue; while candidates have been doing this for decades either because they never intended to go through with them or they simply met too much opposition it represents another cancer within the system. (and frankly, Trumps turn at it was only more blatantly obvious)


4. Trump has appointed to top White House jobs people with disturbing records of bigotry.

This should at least be concerning


2. Russian covert action influenced the election.

Assuming its true, it's absolutely an issue, one that we do too; influencing elections of other nations for the promotion of one own international relations is a pass-time these days. Another cancer within the system


1. Trump has made clear he will use the presidency to enrich himself, risking the corruption of our democracy.

Hillary was being crucified for this very thing; non-issue? Really?


That said, there's not really anything here damning enough to legitimize a vote against the state's outcome, since much of it is based on "what-ifs".
edit on 11/26/2016 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Why in the world should we care about them being pissed off? Ive been pissed off for 8 years, and I am quite sure none of the alt-left cared about that!



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

You read it and answered it, that's how I make a thread.




How do you make a thread out of such slop like SCREW Huff Post as anything real.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Why in the world should we care about them being pissed off? Ive been pissed off for 8 years, and I am quite sure none of the alt-left cared about that!

Because the further the pendulum swings to either side every few years, the more destructive the end result will eventually be.

It's not the time to be spiteful.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neomaximus10

I know what you are saying but I don't think it goes far enough in explaining what it really does. The EC and the Senator allotment at the end of the day has to do with keeping dissent down and succession from breaking out.
Countries use other ways to keep dissent down, Look at the Scotland situation, Canada catering to Quebec, Autonomous regions in many countries.
Once bad times hit a country, the minority who feels oppressed will attempt to break free. Contrary to Bloomberg and the WSJ we are not in prosperous times for the median worker, hence why this election is so hotly contested by both sides.

If China's GDP growth ever goes below 0% it will collapse as it has so many times before.

If we abolish the EC, expect a constitutional and succession crisis.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz
I've said it in other threads so I'll say it again here...

The democrats are always about giving the little guy a fair chance... The minority right? Just so happens in this case it is the republicans that turn out to be the minority here. But also, look at a map, Reps cover most of the country. Policies that are good for densely populated areas are not always good for the non dense populated areas. So when it comes to a popular vote it doesn't really matter.

But here's the best part for all the liberals out there. In Obama's first term, what did the 3 branches of democrats do? Shoved the unaffordable healthcare act down our throats.

Disclaimer, I voted Johnson solely for 3rd party representation in 2020.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure

Ha, ha ha

Both parties are about getting rich and serving corp masters that lobby like crazy. period> If the dems really wanted to solve the war on poverty, they would have NEVER signed NAFTA.




The democrats are always about giving the little guy a fair chance... The minority right?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join