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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

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.

Excerpt from a letter I recently wrote


According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are, 227 million citizens of voting age in America,(this was a 2015 census number) and in the run-up to the election there were reports that the number of registered voters had surpassed 200 million.

Hillary Clinton took 47.8% (63 million votes) of those who voted while Donald Trump received 46.5%(61 million).
124 million of the 200 million registered to vote approved of one or the other. ONLY 62% of the American population was content to vote for either of the two main party candidates while 38% either voted other or abstained completely.


Of this years voting public
Voted D: 31.5%
Voted R: 30.5%
Other/Abstained: 38% - This number can be further broken down to Libertarian, Green, Independent, 25 "other" parties, and protests votes.

Tell us again how Republicans are a minority and Democrats should give them a chance because of it.




posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Congratulations to the Fluffington Poots for making the fake news list.
Wait..
HuffPo didn't make the fake new list but ATS did?






posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Why does any of this matter? Electoral college is what rules today.




According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are, 227 million citizens of voting age in America,(this was a 2015 census number) and in the run-up to the election there were reports that the number of registered voters had surpassed 200 million. Hillary Clinton took 47.8% (63 million votes) of those who voted while Donald Trump received 46.5%(61 million). 124 million of the 200 million registered to vote approved of one or the other. ONLY 62% of the American population was content to vote for either of the two main party candidates while 38% either voted other or abstained completely. Of this years voting public Voted D: 31.5% Voted R: 30.5% Other/Abstained: 38% - This number can be further broken down to Libertarian, Green, Independent, 25 "other" parties, and protests votes.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:27 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?

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......



The left doesn't want that very reasonable solution. That would mean the 40+% of the Republican vote in California would give 20 or so more EC votes for Trump. Besides I believe a 2/3s majority of states would be required for any change to the EC. That's flat out not happening.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:27 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?

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......



The left doesn't want that very reasonable solution. That would mean the 40+% of the Republican vote in California would give 20 or so more EC votes for Trump. Besides I believe a 2/3s majority of states would be required for any change to the EC. That's flat out not happening.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: eNumbra

Why does any of this matter? Electoral college is what rules today.


1: It's a set up for the last line in that post.
2: It's a simple illustration that no matter who won, a majority of the nation weren't happy with the choices provided to them.
3: While you may be inclined to assume every post that doesn't openly support Trump is calling for the abolition of the Electoral system I am not; I'm simply illustrating that there is a serious issue with where this is all going.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

So what is the difference here than any other election?




1: It's a set up for the last line in that post.
2: It's a simple illustration that no matter who won, a majority of the nation weren't happy with the choices provided to them.
3: While you may be inclined to assume every post that doesn't openly support Trump is calling for the abolition of the Electoral system I am not; I'm simply illustrating that there is a serious issue with where this is all going.




posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

that's idiotic, of course their votes count but they aren't the sole arbiter of the whole country which is what a raw vote would become. also yeah there's thrre million illegals that would be less upset buti don't care about illegals desires they don't represent my country.

jaden



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: eNumbra

So what is the difference here than any other election?


Clearly nothing; I'll just put my head back in the sand now.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

The open and frank discussion will root out the truth, I really want your opinion.




Clearly nothing; I'll just put my head back in the sand now. Text



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

no it doesn't because those podunk states as you put it wouldn't be a member of your nation then and they could hold back water and grain from your state's ass and you'd be proper #ed.

jaden



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlbanArthur

well it's already up to the individual states as far as how they get divided and some states already split them up. as far as federally requiring stays to split them up, that ain't gonna happen.

jaden



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well. So everyone should just trust anything on The Huffington Post.Ariana Huffington. a Rothschild. You know , the family that everyone states is behind globalization , the NWO , basically everything evil in the world ? That Huffington Post ?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I firewalled the HuffPost on principal, a week ago.
Trash.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

that's idiotic, of course their votes count but they aren't the sole arbiter of the whole country which is what a raw vote would become. also yeah there's thrre million illegals that would be less upset buti don't care about illegals desires they don't represent my country.

jaden

Not to mention the deceased the Dems raised as Zombies to vote....



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals
Evidently more people take the word of a Rothschild over intellectual free-thinkers....hmmm...speaks volumes about the general public , eh ?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Since when do Newspapers Get to Decide Presidential Elections ? The Huffington Post is a Bit Presumptuous here wouldn't you say ?



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: seasonal


Do they not understand that the 'push back' on an election reversal would finish the U.S. as a country? At best a dissolving of the Union. At worst?.....


What do you think is happening right now? For the second time in 16 years, the election was stolen by the candidate with less popular votes. The notion of one person, one vote has been completely destroyed. The way I see it, there would be 2.1-million less pissed off voters if the electoral college selected Clinton.


Our system is based on who wins the most Electoral College, not popular votes. Every candidate knew that going in. You can't change the rules after it over with. Do you really want California, New York, Florida and Texas deciding who our president will be, while the rest of the country vote doesn't matter.

How many people voted and how many people live in the US. It's safe to say no candidate won the real popular vote.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join