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.

 

Forget About Popular The Vote, Let's Look At The Geographic Vote !

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Country's going full retard for the next 4 years. Fake news is in. Educated journalists are out. Science is also out. As is general decency. Best to not even try to use reason or logic- too much processing will run in circles-- put the brains in cold storage for now... we'll revisit sanity after the next 4 years of monkey's f#cking a football. And then decide if we want to double down on stupid for another 4 years.


Generally, the more educated you become, the more you realize how little you actually know. With that understanding comes a more open mindset, and an acceptance of alternative viewpoints. It also makes one more curious and speculative, and willing to seek out the truth -- aka a more liberal-minded person.

Authoritarians have historically always been anti-intellectual. Keeping a dumbed-down population makes it easier for the authoritarian to steamroll and bamboozle the people. People are easier to fool, and easier to distract when they aren't as educated.

There are far fewer challenges to an authoritarian's power structure when intellectualism is suppressed. The intelligent are usually some of the first to go when a society's culture takes a turn/nosedive into authoritarianism/fascism/nationalism.
edit on 9-12-2016 by Kettu because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule


Wow, that is one Hell of a statement!


Things that make you go hmmm.
edit on 9-12-2016 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: Kali74
Actually...

For quite some time now, people have been leaving rural areas in droves and going to... densely populated areas.


Why? Because people in smaller areas are sick and tired of having not as much choice as those in big, urban areas. You can't find cocktail bread in the 6 counties around your home in Southern Illinois? Move to St. Louis. They still offer it. There's not much cutltural activity to be found at the bottom of Illinois? Move to Chicago. You can't buy blocks of Swiss cheese because you're told by store management that nobody buys it anymore in your underprivileged area? Move to New York City. You can't get your film developed in one hour anywhere in the neighboring three states and instead have to send it off where the negatives get destroyed and never sent back to you? Why, simply move to a huge city that still does offer these things. It's as if people in the smaller areas are being denied everyday items in an effort to herd them en masse into the sprawling urban areas filled with crime and Lunatic Lefties. That's why people are moving out of the smaller rural areas - they're being treated like third-class citizens. There was a time when I could purchase any of those things right in my little town of 1100 population. Now, I have to drive out of town to practically buy everything I need. There's something wrong with that paradigm.


*pst*

It's called "Amazon Prime" and "Netflix".

The reason people leave rural areas is because there isn't any reason to live there. We're not an agrarian society that requires a large farming workforce.

Please, stop victimizing yourself and take responsibility for your situation. There's no reason to keep specialty stores open, or carry a huge inventory of items to cater to the tiny handful of people in rural America.

That's called....capitalism!

With the advent of the internet, you have MORE access to a greater and wider variety of goods and services than any other human in history.

You are choosing to be a victim and classify yourself as a "third world citizen" because you seem to refuse to accept the reality that there isn't really a reason for so many people to live in a rural area that doesn't have any industries to employ them.
edit on 9-12-2016 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Blue Mule.

Where have you been?

Good to see you back.

What about changing the voting system to ranked choice voting?



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DrStevenBrule

Wow, you just pointed out that you have higher rates of crime where you have more people.

Your sir, win one internet.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: plaindoughnut

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A fresh perspective on the 2016 election



And how that looks




The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.



This is nonsense. One person one vote is how it should be. That's a democracy.



No, that's a popularity contest. A democratic republic would tally the votes per county, and the one that won would get a single vote from that county, that way there is equal representation for the little guy as well as the big guy. A popularity contest just lets the bullies push around the little guy. Basically, how this works is -- your county will vote for who's the most popular in that county, and then we see who won the most counties. We don't group everyone together as if they were all in one place and vote for the popular party. That's defacto unfair to those outside major population cities. [This is what the electoral college attempts to do with adjustments made, because states differ in size/county amounts/populations, and so they are graded for a value.]

There have been 15 Democrats elected with the electoral college, and now 19 Republicans. The remaining presidents were elected during the founding and breakdown as follows, 4 whigs, 4 democratic republicans, 1 federalist, and 1 with no party affiliation. It's funny to me, that NOW all of a sudden because the Blue side lost, the Blue side wants to abolish the electorate, even though it's worked pretty fairly for everyone involved since it's inception. If you haven't noticed, the elections swing, we get a red pres, a blue pres, a red pres, a blue pres, that's just how it goes -- why? Largely because when a Red pres gets in, the rest of the government is blue and stops them from doing anything, when a blue gets in, the rest is red and block him from doing anything. It's rare when a president gets elected red/red or blue/blue, but when it does -- that's when actual change can happen. Some may not like the changes, but not fixing something the way YOU want it fixed and not fixing it at all -- fixing it is more desirable.

If the majority in Wichita Kansas wanted trump, they should get equal representation, if we just totaled all the votes, then a city like New York would override Wichita's representation. That's the anti-thesis of democracy.


originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: DrStevenBrule

Wow, you just pointed out that you have higher rates of crime where you have more people.

Your sir, win one internet.


No, you just don't know what "per capita" means. Crime Rate per capita, is PROPORTIONED to the population. This means a higher % of the actual population is a criminal, not that you get more criminals because there are more people, that would actually equate to a lower crime rate per capita, and if it were true, would prove that there is actually LESS crime in all ways in urban environments.

SMH. So many uninformed/uneducated people.
edit on 10-12-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Hey there thanks for the kind words! I haven't looked into ranked choice voting but now that I've heard of it I'll check it out.

I've been busy with moving to a new town and getting a degree but I'm on Christmas break so I wanted to swing by. ✌️️



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
My daughter that hasn't spoken to me since the election made sure to let me know that she lives in a 'cultured city' (Philadelphia) and the rest of the country (rural areas) is full of rednecks.

Culture seems to correlate with high crime rates.

Suburban and rural rates are similar, urban rates are higher.
crime


That... is just horrible to hear. I am sorry to hear your daughter ended up with the brainwashed, i really am.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Syphon

originally posted by: rickymouse
Very good research. Small dense population areas cannot be allowed to control the whole country. That is like creating a dictatorship. The people in these highly populated areas do not even produce a fraction of their foods they consume. Our system of the electoral college tries to balance this, and even though it is not perfect, it does keep a few big cities from enslaving the rest of the nation.


And if those big cities started buying their produce exclusively from from Mexico and other foreign nations half of the farms in the United States would go under. So those counties may not produce a fraction of the food they consume (as if that is valid measurement of anything), but they sure as hell financially support a good portion of those of you living in Farmville.


That is what subsidies are for. The farmers would not hurt. They would be paid by the subsidies for each acre they do not grow.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Here's how dumb the OP's argument is.

Imagine there was a 51's state, and that it was equal in area to all the other states combined. And suppose that state had a population of just 1. Should that 1 person's vote count as much as the 300 million people that live in the rest of the country, just because they have a lot of geography on their side?



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

It's because higher population densities means more criminal opportunity and more potential victims.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Sounds like what you are saying thought is that population density should effect vote credibility, that's not democracy.

One person, one vote, anything else is a manipulation of the will of the people(Or could be a manipulation).

And its not like i don't agree with a significant proportion of the rest of what you said but end of the day, if indeed the US is one nation, then everyone's vote should be equal no matter whether you live in a city or rural community.


How many times do people here need to point it out? The U.S is not a democracy.
It is also not 1 nation, it is 50 of them.
(58 according to obama)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join