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.

 

Hillary would have won the election if the US uses a conventional election scheme

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Almost every republic uses a conventional election scheme. In the first round, if no one gets a majority of more than 50%, there is a run off between the top 2 and whoever wins the run off gets the win. Hillary didn't get a majority so it would have went to a run off where Hillary would have won. The US is the only republic that uses the bizarre electoral college scheme that does not take popular vote into account.


There's a significant body of thought that Trump would have ran his campaign differently if it was a simple vote count, therefore it is difficult to say that Hillary would have won.

There are also likely to be voters who feel effectively disenfranchised because they live in states that are heavily leaning one way or the other. It's difficult to say that any of the states, red or blue, would have had the same outcome if every eligible voter had voted - or even if a larger portion of them had voted.

So, while it's not exactly incorrect, it's also not correct to say that Hillary would have won if the popular vote was used, because the candidates would have campaigned differently and people may very well have voted differently, including the amount of people voting.

All that aside, the electoral college is a solution to the difficulties of what is essentially 50 different nations trying to remain fairly represented in an overarching system of governance. It might not be a perfect solution, but it's a damn sight better than the popular vote.




posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
The Presidency is the only nationally elected office that represents all Americans.

The House represents the population of each State. The Senate gives equal representation to each State.

The Executive should reflect the will of the People. However, personally I do believe that we should go back to the person with the highest number of votes becoming President, and the second highest becoming Vice President. That would do away with a lot of the party politics or at least balance it out.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I could agree to that, it was one of the things I liked from the party I am a part of.

We tagged a right leaning guy for President, and a left leaning guy for Vice, but the top two finishers would be a better option... as long as they can remember they are in office to represent the citizens... not the party... which may be beyond our modern day politicians.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Almost every republic uses a conventional election scheme. In the first round, if no one gets a majority of more than 50%, there is a run off between the top 2 and whoever wins the run off gets the win. Hillary didn't get a majority so it would have went to a run off where Hillary would have won. The US is the only republic that uses the bizarre electoral college scheme that does not take popular vote into account.


Links?

Sources?

Crystal Ball?

Anything at all to get you off the thin ice?


Geez, somebody needs a link for those items???
Let's put it another way then. The electoral college failed miserably in it's intended purpose by managing to elect someone of the ilk who is exactly the type of person that they are supposed to keep out of the White House.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Lalala--
The EC does need to be discussed, but all these comments just go in circles.

If no one even recalls, 3 people that did not even run in the election received electoral votes.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

We go head to head on the boards, but I truly hope you kick cancer's ass. My Dad died of lung cancer, so I know a bit of what you're going through. I am not a religious person, but I am a Spiritual person, so all my best thoughts toward your recovery.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Perhaps instead of changing the rules so your candidate could win; maybe you back a candidate that is worthy of winning?
100 days out and she still would have lost. Why not admit she was a pos and move on to a better leader? Just about anyone else from the left would have beaten trump; just not her. Trump is no prize but, he is better than her.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eyeHillary would have won the election if the US uses a conventional election scheme

And if my mom wasn't 4'9" tall, I probably would have been taller.

And if life evolved on Venus instead of Earth, life forms would look different.

And if sugar didn't convert to fat storage, obesity wouldn't be as big of an issue.

And if "if's" and "buts" were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Of course, Hillary is more than welcome to move to a country where there isn't an electoral college...



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

Geez, somebody needs a link for those items???
Let's put it another way then. The electoral college failed miserably in it's intended purpose by managing to elect someone of the ilk who is exactly the type of person that they are supposed to keep out of the White House.


Actually it succeeded perfectly in ensuring the winning candidate had the support of the majority of states, instead of selecting the special interest favored by a handful of coastal states.

In fact, as much as I might despise the Wicked Witch of the Whitehouse, I would still say that the system succeeded perfectly if she had won. It even managed to succeed perfectly on both of the occasions when the Chicago Shuckster oozed his way to victory.

We don't judge success by whether or not our preferred person wins the race, we judge success by the race being won fairly and squarely.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Perhaps instead of changing the rules so your candidate could win; maybe you back a candidate that is worthy of winning?
100 days out and she still would have lost. Why not admit she was a pos and move on to a better leader? Just about anyone else from the left would have beaten trump; just not her. Trump is no prize but, he is better than her.


This is spot on. Trump was handed victory the moment Clinton stabbed Sanders in the back.

You all know the old joke about not needing to outrun the bear, just outrun the slowest person in the group. Clinton was the slowest person in the group, then she kneecap'd Sanders and left him for the bear. Fortunately for Trump, she refused to admit she was so slow that the bear could finish off Sanders and still catch up with her.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
You use the word "Republic" loosely. And your references are "democracies" not Republics. Hillary lost, get over it. Or as the snowflakes would like to believe she "won second place". Praise the Founding Fathers! They knew what "democracy" could do to the nation they fought, bled and sacrificed for. A majority of idiots controlling a government. God bless them! Hillary LOST! Now be an adult about it and move on.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye
She was playing Monopoly by collecting all the money while Trump bought all the property. She could only last a few turns after that because every place she landed she had to pay out. Then she was out of money and lost the game.

By the time Hillary called Trump and gave up she had not only lost the Electoral College vote but she was over one million behind in the popular vote.

Why are you are still whining about this? Hillary knew how the game worked.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

I could agree to that, it was one of the things I liked from the party I am a part of.

We tagged a right leaning guy for President, and a left leaning guy for Vice, but the top two finishers would be a better option... as long as they can remember they are in office to represent the citizens... not the party... which may be beyond our modern day politicians.


Needed Constitutional Amendment(s) (Restoring American Freedom or some such ....)

1. Term Limits: President (done) 2 terms. Senate: 2 terms (12 years) House 4 terms (8 years).

2. National Repeal, Initiative and Recall (Impeachment): Find a way to provide the ability to have an annual election that could establish any law, repeal any law, and remove any nationally elected official. (To the Presidency, the Congress OR the Supreme Court (the idea that SCOTUS is free of politics is insane.)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
So why aren't the leftist hyoocrotes advocating for popular vote based on population on the global scale?

At the UN don't all countiries get the same vote regardless of size?

How about it, globalists?

Should the countries with the highest popukarion dominate over the small ones?


edit on 24-4-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eyeThe US is the only republic that uses the bizarre electoral college scheme that does not take popular vote into account.

-sigh-

I wish people wouldn't speak about things of which they know nothing.

The Electoral College absolutely does take the popular vote into account.

But, it does this on a State by State level, not the National level.

This is to prevent the tyranny of the minority (one or three high population states) over the majority (the rest of the States).

Otherwise, a few of the states with the highest population cities - the populations of which almost universally are all socialist/communist in their political views - could impose their will on the majority of the rest of the country.

Thank God for the Electoral College!
edit on 24-4-2017 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Mordekaiser

You see it as acting like a bully. I see it as being the ultimate decision maker. And thank god that power has finally been invested into a competant president.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Calling me an idiot because im right is ironic.

Nukes were never fire crackers. The technology was devceloped for WWII by a team of scientists led by AMERICANs.

The chinese invented firecrackers thousands of years ago then that technology spread to europe. Nuclear physics wasn't a thing back then so they wouldnmt have known how to detonate a nuclear warhead. If they DID it would of been to heavy to put on a firework.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: crazyewok

Calling me an idiot because im right is ironic.

Nukes were never fire crackers. The technology was devceloped for WWII by a team of scientists led by AMERICANs.

The chinese invented firecrackers thousands of years ago then that technology spread to europe. Nuclear physics wasn't a thing back then so they wouldnmt have known how to detonate a nuclear warhead. If they DID it would of been to heavy to put on a firework.


The fact you took my post so far out of context proves my point......your a idiot.

The nukes dropped on japan where magnitudes smaller than the hydrogen bombs in service now.





originally posted by: FuggleHopThe technology was devceloped for WWII by a team of scientists led by AMERICANs.

Whats your point?

And anyway it was a team made up of Americans, British, canadians and exiled germans.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I didnt take it out of context whatever that is. I know you like firecrackers and fireworks but this isn't Endor. This is real life. And in real life their are times when you have to use nukes. Namecalling and getting hot under the caller doesnt change that.

Um wrong again their werent any nazis helping oPpenheimer build the nuclear bombs (that were DROPPED not launched btw, another difference between fireworks and nukes at the time).

You should do your homework before pretending to be an authority.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FuggleHop

Are you really that stupid?

You really dont understand how the nuclear bombs of today dwalf the bombs of 1945?


And i did not say Nazi's you numbskull, I said germans in exile. Thousands of Germans fled Germany to work with the USA and UK when the NAZIs came to power! Half of which had to do so because of being Jewish!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join