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.

 

The people's voice was not heard

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

No, I'm saying that 63,000,000 Americans voted for Hillary. By saying that the American people won does that mean you're calling 63,000,000 people un-American?
edit on 1/19/2017 by LumenImagoDei because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
You scorched them a good one with that reply. She's not POTUS because the popular vote does not elect the president. WHY???? is it so hard for the left to grasp this fact.a reply to: watchitburn



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

This has nothing to do with left vs right, it has to do with people saying something false repeatedly.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

Ironically, the same person who coined the phrase "tyranny of the majority" (Adams) was also the guy who used his party's control of Congress to pass laws (Alien and Sedition Acts) to lock up newspaper editors who supported his opponent (Jefferson) and to almost triple the time it took to become a naturalized citizen (increasing residency requirement from 5 to 14 years) in order to suppress the pro-Jefferson vote (Jefferson being popular amongst immigrants).

I do however appreciate the rationale behind the fear of direct democracy — that a simple majority might act in their own interests and against the interests of the minority (not to be mistaken for a simple difference of opinion). That said, a minority that assumes power and acts in its own interest against the majority or a collection of other minorities groups is no less tyrannical and certainly possessing less of a mandate.

None of that really has anything to do with the map that you keep posting though. Furthermore, as Trump supporters are want to do, you focus on only the aspects of the EC that you believe fit your argument. Specifically when it comes to the "tyranny of the majority," one of the principal concerns the EC was intended to address was in fact a populist movement installing a despot. In other words, even if Trump had won the popular vote, the intention was that if electors viewed a candidate like Trump as a clear threat to the country, faithless electors would override the vote of the populist movement.

There's a whole lot of cognitive dissonance when it comes to Trump supporters extolling the virtues of indirect democracy on top of the absurdity of members of a populist movement going on about the "tyranny of the majority."

Trump has no popular mandate (he doesn't even have popular approval of his transition). He won the election. He'll be sworn in tomorrow and we'll see what happens from there. If he appeals only to or governs in the interest of only his core supporters, he'll face a backlash that puts the current negative reception in proper context. Believe me.

edit on 2017-1-19 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
a reply to: projectvxn

Have you not read through the thread? I've already said that my beef isn't with the electoral college, it is with Trump supporters repeating over and over that the American people won when the American people favored Hillary over Trump.


I got that. It isn't the system we use.

If we had a popular vote system entirely 4 states would elect the president and the rest of the nation would have zero representation at the voting booth.

2 or 3 million votes in California does not represent the entirety of the US and its interests.

Your argument here is moot.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Because apparently California isn't a part of the United States anymore. I dunno. Trump supporter rhetoric rarely makes sense to me.


Only their scores of illegal voters aren't part of the United States (or, at least soon won't be part of the United States...)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look at the electoral map and then make your own judgement, and isn't it great that the states with lax voter id laws are the ones that are most heavily blue 🤔



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Is Comrade Trump going to allow Putin invade and annex California? If you have some actual evidence of millions of illegal votes, let's see it.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look at the electoral map and then make your own judgement, and isn't it great that the states with lax voter id laws are the ones that are most heavily blue 🤔


The desperation of Trump supporters to believe theirs is the opinion of the majority of Americans! Would you like to talk about all the red state voter suppression and gerrymandering? Let's start with North Carolina.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Because apparently California isn't a part of the United States anymore. I dunno. Trump supporter rhetoric rarely makes sense to me.


Only their scores of illegal voters aren't part of the United States (or, at least soon won't be part of the United States...)

Got any proof of these illegal voters? No. Of course you don't. It's fun to pretend so you can't lose an argument isn't it?



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Look at the electoral map and then make your own judgement, and isn't it great that the states with lax voter id laws are the ones that are most heavily blue 🤔

That's because voter id laws are Republican policies.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It doesn't matter if it was the majority of Americans. The system worked, it stopped two liberal dystopias from electing the president for everyone. That's a win no matter how you look at it.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They're ever single country in the entire worlds policies. Closet racists on the left use it as crutch to act like they care about minorities, when really it's an insult to their intelligence.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Because apparently California isn't a part of the United States anymore. I dunno. Trump supporter rhetoric rarely makes sense to me.


California, and New York, aren't the entirety of the United States.

FTFY

And people voted Democrat in more states than CA and NY. So what are you fixing besides trying to paint a narrative that Democrats only exist in two states?


You're the one that opened the door with "California isn't part of the US anymore" whinging, bub. Thanks for the breaking news update that people outside of those two states voted Dem, though. Having voted Dem before and not living in either of those states, I had no idea.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

The flip side of that is that the vote of a single person in Wyoming shouldn't count three times as much as the vote of a person in New Jersey. Consider the following:

Wyoming is 16th overall in dependence on federal spending of tax dollars. New Jersey is 48th. It could be argued that because NJ residents pay more in federal taxes for less return, that the residents of Wyoming are in part dependent on those of NJ. Giving the voters of Wyoming 3x as much of an impact on the election doesn't seem likely to do anything but promote that imbalance because it is in the interest of the residents of Wyoming to do so.

Not to pick on Wyoming, that's just an example off the top of my head.

Our entire election system is a mess from primaries that put too much focus on the states that hold their primaries earlier to the excessive campaigning in a handful of battleground states — which translates to undue influence held by those states.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

The majority didn't vote probably because we had the two worst possible candidates to choose from. What makes you think they would have voted Trump when they decided not to vote at all? I could just as easily say that they would have given Hillary an even larger margin of victory in the popular vote and I'd have just as much proof as you for my opinion.

The majority of people who did vote voted for Hillary, the people who didn't vote didn't vote for either. How does your post make any sense?
edit on 1/19/2017 by LumenImagoDei because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
a reply to: Bluntone22

Then stop saying the American people won because the American people voted Hillary. I don't have any beef with the electoral college, I have beef with Trump supporters saying something that is clearly false.


Dude...

The electoral college has voted in EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT SINCE 1804!

Why the hell are you complaining now?



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LumenImagoDei

Because apparently California isn't a part of the United States anymore. I dunno. Trump supporter rhetoric rarely makes sense to me.


California, and New York, aren't the entirety of the United States.

FTFY

And people voted Democrat in more states than CA and NY. So what are you fixing besides trying to paint a narrative that Democrats only exist in two states?


Seriously? I've read this entire thread and nobody has said that so quit projecting.

What everyone is saying is Trump won by electoral college very convincingly and to deny that is just showing ignorance.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

As far as the electors, you're right, the founders did not trust the citizens to make the right choice. But the right choice is subjective is it not?

The map you are trying to discredit is very relevant because the fact of the matter is with the system we have that is how you win. The whole argument that HRC would be president if we went by popular vote is moot and unknowable for the simple fact that election strategies would have been completely different.

Your whole argument basically reinforces my belief that the federal government should be very limited with the states being able to more govern as they see fit. With the feds ensuring constitutional rights are not trampled.

After all the people of California want a different style of government than the people of Montana.

Now is Trump the right person for that? The jury is still out but on some things like Marijuana legalization he has said it should be up to the states.



posted on Jan, 19 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They're ever single country in the entire worlds policies. Closet racists on the left use it as crutch to act like they care about minorities, when really it's an insult to their intelligence.

You clearly don't research your points before repeating them ad nausem do you? For one, that statement isn't even close to true. Every other country in the world doesn't require an id to vote. Then for the countries it IS true the laws aren't as strict as they are with Republican voter-id laws. Of course you are also ignoring how Republican voter id laws keep getting over-turned for being racist.

Voter ID proponents point to laws in other countries

Do other democracies require voters to carry photo IDs when they vote?

Many do, but the laws aren’t as strict as those in Texas and South Carolina. According to a Harvard Law & Policy Review study, plenty of democracies do require voters to show identification, but many make allowances for those citizens who, for whatever reason, don’t have official government IDs.

From the report:

Poll workers in Ireland can ask voters for proof of identity, but voters have a choice of “five different forms of photo ID, in addition to bank books, credit cards, checkbooks and marriage certificates.”

“In Switzerland, every registered voter is sent a registration card prior to an election, and if the voter brings her registration card to the polling place, no additional identification is needed.”

“Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.”

Sweden’s policy is a bit more vague, requiring that a “voter who is not known to the voting clerks [produce] an identity document or in another way verify her or his identity.”

“India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.”

That’s in addition to many countries that don’t require ID to vote, such as “Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland),” the authors wrote.

They also pointed out that in many other countries, it’s much easier to obtain identification than it is in the United States because ID cards are issued to all citizens automatically:

But hey when distilled down to its simplest points your point looks like it makes sense, but then you have to ignore that pesky detail that other countries have other politics that are driven by different social issues at play as well.
edit on 19-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join