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.

 

California main reason for Clintons popular vote win

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: liveandlearn


HONEST QUESTION. Would the USA, as a whole, suffer in any meaningful way, if California became it's own country?



Only my opinion:

Suffer no. More balanced, Yes. Speaking only of elections.
edit on 19-12-2016 by liveandlearn because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: carewemust

We'd lose a couple trillion in GDP...but California would lose Nevadas water supply.



No kidding! That's two TRILLION dollars lost if California becomes its own nation? People act like California just produces movies and fruits. I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the info!



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yep. 2 Trillion. Maybe a few billion more. Haven't looked at the numbers in a while.

California is also home to many tech and defense companies. They also produce a lot of oil.

It would hurt the US a bit, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. A lot of those companies would jump ship pretty fast as California would lose a lot of federal funding and would have to make up for it with over a trillion in new taxes.

They would struggle for a long while, but they would probably be ok in 10 or 15 years time as well.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Thank-you for that analysis, Projectvxn. Sounds similar to what the experts are saying about Britain's status, as it adapts to being separate from the European Union.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yes the fishing and hunting is great here in Michigan.
I was asking Oldtimer2, who is from Michigan that got us into this mess?



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: rickymouse

You should have to show picture state ID to vote.

Regardless of the merit of that sentiment, if you look at the link I provided you'll see nearly half the States do not. So I think it's missing the mark to say California has too lax of governance in that respect as it's commonplace among the States. That's all i'm saying.


I'm just saying that anyone voting should have a picture ID. In Michigan, you can go to the license bureau and get one. There should be no charge for getting one either. The fact that not having one to vote makes it so there is a big chance of someone rigging the election makes it mandatory. You already have to be registered in your precinct, so why not show an ID. You have to show real ID here where I live in order to vote.



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

Not sure what the ramifications of this would be on the political map but what if the California was split in two separate states?

Movement to Split California into 2 States Continues

Jefferson would span from the Oregon border down to Placer and Mendocino Counties. So far, two of the 20 counties have submitted paperwork to separate. Four more are preparing to file in less than two weeks.



Jefferson would span from the Oregon border down to Placer and Mendocino Counties. So far, two of the 20 counties have submitted paperwork to separate. Four more are preparing to file in less than two weeks.


Curious to see how much more Red shows up on in the northern part of the state.
edit on 19-12-2016 by Observationalist because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2016 by Observationalist because: Bold article link didn't work



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: liveandlearn

Not sure what the ramifications of this would be on the political map but what if the California was split in two separate states?

Movement to Split California into 2 States Continues

Jefferson would span from the Oregon border down to Placer and Mendocino Counties. So far, two of the 20 counties have submitted paperwork to separate. Four more are preparing to file in less than two weeks.



Jefferson would span from the Oregon border down to Placer and Mendocino Counties. So far, two of the 20 counties have submitted paperwork to separate. Four more are preparing to file in less than two weeks.


Curious to see how much more Red shows up on in the northern part of the state.


I am on my way to bed so not willing to do the research at the moment.

however,as they are north of San Fran, I suspect they would only take away a few electors from the major portions of Cali. The benefit for them is mostly local as they are more rural. They would be free from the more Cali liberal rules and regs. Think in the overall presidential race only a minor impact if any.

None the less, on a local level, good for them if they can pull it off.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
New York and Massachusetts together give her the same popular vote lead as California, so it wasn't just California that helped her win. Although, California had the most popular vote lead for her, this is true.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

California is not the main reason for Clinton's popular vote win.

California is the *ONLY* reason.

If you add up the popular vote totals for *all* other 49 other states combined - Trump wins the popular vote.

And that includes NY where Clinton had a very large margin of victory.

Neither CA nor any other single state or two gets to pick the President of the United States. We are the 50 United STATES of America.

Period.



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

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: liveandlearn

California is the *ONLY* reason.


Too truthy for leftists, but quoting it again anyway.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yes, given that California, by it's self, has a GDP, if I'm remembering this correctly, in the top ten nations on Earth, if separated from the US.

Not unsurvivable, mind you, but it'd be a thump.

I don't think it'd stay that way for long, many of those tech companies have rather rich govt. contracts that'd suddenly dry up. Defense industry jobs. Federal jobs. It'd be a rough row to hoe for California probably rather quickly.

But since it's unlikely to happen, as in zero chance--or less, I shouldn't worry too much.

But it is an interesting idea, the Balkanization of North America.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Why not divide all states by voting power to accumulate the popular vote?

I mean l-o-l we already claim the EC is better, just literally give people from WY 3 votes and abolish the electors.

Math is the enemy of democracy sometimes I swear. Why just 1 vote? People weight their opinions all the time. "Equal" voters have no representation, they just 'don't vote'. It would give far more analysis and information....but lol not 'traditional'.

The EC will change when Republican addiction to nationalism does.
edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

The EC isn't about tradition or any other ridiculous crap you keep spouting. It's about representation.

Without it 4 states would dominate the entire nation. Of those 4 states only a handful of counties would be required for any national election to go forward. How the hell is that fair?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

The EC isn't about tradition or any other ridiculous crap you keep spouting. It's about representation.

Without it 4 states would dominate the entire nation. Of those 4 states only a handful of counties would be required for any national election to go forward. How the hell is that fair?


I literally just used math to explain my solution. I know it's difficult to grasp, but you do not think there is an equation that can exactly translate the EC voter power into multiple votes for the people, and have the same representations? Why not?

I said math would be the enemy of this idea: did you even grasp I'm not speaking to a traditional 'pure' democracy?

What do you think "People from WY should just get 3 votes instead" meant? That "A hand full of states with 80% voter power would dominate"?

Even if you don't agree with those specific figures can you humor the idea and not derail to the oldest argument on earth instead? Would you be happy getting multiple votes as a reward to being in rural areas? Or you're still happy with guys in suits to getting extra votes for you? That's the basic question.
edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

I fail to see how your equation would be representative of the will of the people of the several states, either individually or collectively.

You're proposing an exercise that would encourage voter fraud rather than minimize it.
edit on 20 12 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Rofl okay. You're being intentionally delusional, and literally denying math exists.

And voter fraud is linked to voter registration, not people voting.

If you want to continue to be intentionally delusional, I'll use analogies with ridiculous figures of the exact same idea you can't refute.

We will give people from Rural states ONE-THOUSAND VOTES each, and people from California 1.

Who wins that election genius?


edit on 20-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

It isn't the math I have a problem with. It's over complicating the system that has managed to work since the constitution was ratified.

What you need is a lesson in civics.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: imjack

It isn't the math I have a problem with. It's over complicating the system that has managed to work since the constitution was ratified.

What you need is a lesson in civics.


Over complicating? I'm suggesting we just use a popular vote BASED on the previous systems electorate power.

The math ISN'T actually that hard, and my explicit point before was the reason it's not used is because it's MATH and not traditional, and now I need a lesson in civics. You need a lesson in probability and basic algebra. My point is you can formulate a method for equivalent results. You must not understand what I'm even saying to be against it, or you must not know what equivalent results means. Complicated is your personal opinion. Mine is that giving rural people more votes makes more sense than giving them the same corrupt representatives, but all the responsibility of making the most important choice between them. You think the fact all the Red States landslide wouldn't be beneficial in a popular vote? You really don't understand math. What I'm saying isn't even that complicated at all. The current voting power of WY is 360%, based on electorates. So lets give people from WY 3.6 votes and remove the electorates. This is only basic rocket science level math people.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack




Over complicating? I'm suggesting we just use a popular vote BASED on the previous systems electorate power.


So keep the electoral college then?

It's amazing to me you don't realize why this sounds so stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join