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.

 

Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Umm ... sorry to intrude, but this last election was RIGGED, and the majority vote luckily was enough to cancel the rigging, this last time.

Will it next time?

I guess we will see.

Every election will be rigged, forever ... and ever, unless there is more of an outcry to stop it.

It would be nice to stop the rigging of elections, but people like Michael Moore seem to just want to rig it further.

wtf?

We need voter ID.

Even that is not perfect, but there will be less 'rigging' if there is one verified ID'd person = one vote.




posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The 'about' page linked in the article mentions that there are plenty of Republicans involved with the movement...
www.nationalpopularvote.com...
Guess it is a bi-partisan effort.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
That's a very good way to get the shooting started. Maybe that's what they really want.

Revenge for losing the Civil War.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

'A lot' is more than one, to me. There were 7 defector electors in 2016.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
If Hillary won the Republicans would have wanted the entire thing overhauled.


And that is exactly true.

Republicans were trashing the EC over Obama.

I don't believe either of these parties really gives a damn what you and I think. They never will.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: links234



'A lot' is more than one, to me.

I have two bucks in my pocket.
That's a lot of money!



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: links234



'A lot' is more than one, to me.

I have two bucks in my pocket.
That's a lot of money!

For leftists that's a lot of money! Or so according to conservatives.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The EC is a good thing, the only change I would possibly consider is states assigning votes proportionally rather than as winner take all.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Just repeating it for the kids that might have missed it...
Cheers, Phage



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Because it did not work for THEM this time .

Both sides try to change the rules or even the constitution of they don't get their way
And that further shows that they don't do things that are good for the people, they don't represent the people who have them their jobs .
They only care about themselves and how they can find new ways to make our lives harder .
Recent example is that they won't cut foreign aid to hepl Americans affected by natural disasters. They can't fix our country first and then help others , seems like other countries come first .
edit on 12100000009 by JHumm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Every State is Red and Blue.

There are Republicans in California, there are Democrats in Idaho.

I think some have begun to believe that just because a State gets colored in as "Red" that means there are no Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

The number of Electors is based on population. The more populous states have more Electors. According to the flaccid "mob rule" argument, this is anarchy.

In the end, the Presidency is won by who has the most Electors pledged to them, based on winner-take-all as dictated by the MAJORITY POPULAR VOTE in each State.

(There are two exceptions, based on State laws, Maine and Nebraska, who apportion their votes.)

Who do you folks think you're fooling with this?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Aren't the electors governed by the parties and not election laws??

Who enacted election laws ?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

I know! I know!
The states. Right?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

edit on 9/12/17 by Gothmog because: Pulled due to corretion . Not had my first cup o Java yet. Feeling awake now



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
No. It's called gerrymandering.
It is real with districts having floating islands now...
Lee Greenwood wouldn't be proud if he saw the map of electoral districts.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Better go back in history there......
How far back?

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.


Or do you have some other federal election laws in mind? Because, as far as I can tell, that's about it.
edit on 9/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
Because it did not work for THEM this time .

Both sides try to change the rules or even the constitution of they don't get their way
And that further shows that they don't do things that are good for the people, they don't represent the people who have them their jobs .
They only care about themselves and how they can find new ways to make our lives harder .
Recent example is that they won't cut foreign aid to hepl Americans affected by natural disasters. They can't fix our country first and then help others , seems like other countries come first .

Examples of both sides ?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Just repeating it for the kids that might have missed it...
Cheers, Phage

This right here^^^^^^^
You did know that is the outstanding rule of the Electoral College , right ?
48 States have winner takes all ?
Why is that "wanting to change the Electoral Colege" ?
You didnt read your own linked article did you ?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

I know! I know!
The states. Right?

Election laws ?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
In the last election, the biggest disparity between the minority Ds and the majority Rs was in Wyoming, with the D getting 21.63% (55,973) of the vote and the R getting 67.40%. (174, 719)

The total population of the State of Wyoming is 585,501 people.

So again, if we want to talk about what the people of a state want in Wyoming it would have been 9.5% wanted the D and about 30% wanted the R.

60% didn't express an opinion by voting.

In most "Red States" the split is closer to 60% R and 40% D. In "Blue States" it's the other way round.

So stop with the nonsense that only California and New York have Democrats, and that the rest of the country is all Republican.

It's a lie.

Source
edit on 12-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join