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.

 

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'm all for this. All those blue states are going to get a rude awakening when they depress the vote in their own state, and cause a republican to win the popular vote and you have the Largest Republican Electoral Landslide in history.




Oh Jesus, can you imagine the squeals of outrage if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020, and California was forced to award its votes to him (despite not carrying that state) because of this agreement? The state legislators who voted for it would literally be hunted down in the streets like deer in November.


a reply to: Wardaddy454
Didn't they increase the number of super delegates after the 2016 election, because Bernie came way too close to winning for the DNC leaders' comfort?
edit on 10-5-2018 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I see two options

Liberals are playing checkers again. Liberals are looking for other people's money.

Presidential Elections are a game, and to win the game, you spend your time and money to get the EC votes you need. If you know NY is going to go Blue, and it's not going to be close. Red is not going to spend that much money in the state. Blue knowing it will be blue, will spend less money there too. Big money is only spend in the battle ground states. Increase spending in the state is one reason for this.

If you need the popular vote, then more Red candidates will spend money hoping their ads attracts voters or keep Blue's voters at home. The margins in the blue states might not have been as large. Or if trump had people with ICE hats on at the poling places, he might have won by a couple of million....



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
I see two options

Liberals are playing checkers again. Liberals are looking for other people's money.

Presidential Elections are a game, and to win the game, you spend your time and money to get the EC votes you need. If you know NY is going to go Blue, and it's not going to be close. Red is not going to spend that much money in the state. Blue knowing it will be blue, will spend less money there too. Big money is only spend in the battle ground states. Increase spending in the state is one reason for this.

If you need the popular vote, then more Red candidates will spend money hoping their ads attracts voters or keep Blue's voters at home. The margins in the blue states might not have been as large. Or if trump had people with ICE hats on at the poling places, he might have won by a couple of million....

Plenty of people suspect that if we had voter ID laws, a few million Hillary votes would have never been cast.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: DBCowboy

that's actually is what the EC is for. Giving the people the illusion of a vote, but keeping the vote with the ruling class.


You are quite wrong, again.

Originally the plan was for Congress to appoint the President. However, it was thought that process would eventually be undermined.


The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.[16] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by the Congress. However, once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South.


So the reverse is actually true. The electoral college was put in place so that a small group of powerful people could not subvert the election process.

No surprise that it is under attack by the progressive left, whose end game is a small group of people who rule over all the rest of the citizenry.

Read up on American Constitutional history... it's fun!


edit on 10-5-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


I believe so.

Funny isn't it.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

That means they think they have enough illegal alien votes to win now. With Illinois granting special voter ID's to illegals it is bound to make a difference. If it wasn't going to I doubt the dems would do it in the first place.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Krakatoa

That means they think they have enough illegal alien votes to win now. With Illinois granting special voter ID's to illegals it is bound to make a difference. If it wasn't going to I doubt the dems would do it in the first place.


Open borders! For those who were too blind to see the reasoning behind it, hope you got your head out of the sand now! What is really odd?

What Republican has had the ballz to bring this up???? "Things that make you go hmmmmm..."

Globalist Scumbags! The whole lot of them.
edit on 10-5-2018 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf


If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.



I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I wish they would have the primaries all in one day. Too many people don't vote in the later ones because the outcome is already decided like in CA. A lot of people didn't vote for Bernie in CA because they thought his chances were done and the basically were. I guarantee more people liked Sanders than Clinton in CA and he would have won if all of the primaries were on one day.

I wish there was a runoff with the top two general election candidates. I think you would see a lot more people voting for third party initially if they got another chance to vote for the top 2. A lot people don't vote third party because they have no chance to win on election day.

If there were a runoff between Trump and Clinton. The Popular vote would be interesting. Gary Johnson got 4.5 million votes. I think Trump would get a lot more of those than Clinton. That Utah CIA guy got 700,000 votes. Most of those would go to trump. In total, there were about 8.2-8.3 million non Trump/Clinton votes. With Johnson taking up over half of that, plus even some of the Jill Stine people would vote for trump. I think Trump would take a large portion of that 8.2 million. Hypothetically, if you were to factor out fraud, that would take way more away from Clinton than Trump. So a runoff minus fraud, I am pretty sure Trump would have taken the popular vote on that.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Irishhaf


If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.



I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.


Individual votes actually matter in Texas. As they do in most other states.

That you are a minority voter in that state does not change that. It just means that your ideology is not popular in that state. To change that, simply move to a state where you feel more represented.

Of course, then you wouldn't have a lower business tax and no state tax, so as a business owner that would hurt. Damn those conservative policies though, right?

Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.




posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

As a vet when over seas my absentee b as llot is trashed immediately because it does not have originating point stamps.

At least with you vote their is a chance, a growing chance really with the California people flooding Texas to elect a dem.

This tells you, only the big population centers matter. That is not what was intended by the founders, even if it is a legal decision.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Until they lose by that method and want to change it back. Again, showing how much they actually care for their constituents.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Irishhaf


If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.



I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.


Um, ok. Now imagine your vote DOES match the popular vote in your state and it still ends up meaning nothing because the popular vote everywhere didn't match your own... when you night have won otherwise. So... not really the same thing.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xenon129

I don't think so. As a third party voter I would refuse to vote for either Trump or Clinton since I didn't think they deserved my support. I had already made that decision when I voted the first time. Having a second round would not change my mind on this, I would boycott the runoff. I think you would find most third party voters agree with me.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

The only problem with this effort is none of the States have mandates to do so from their citizens. Nor would they likely receive it.

The they'd need what(?) a 3/4 majority in a Convention of the States to overturn it?

This is cool! Let the Dems continue in fruitless efforts that keep them from finding a platform and credible candidates to run.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Irishhaf


If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.



I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.



Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.


We have an awful lot of undocumenteds in Texas. A WHOLE lot. They mow our lawns, trim our trees, replace our roofs, bus our restaurant tables, and even clean our houses and offices. They help our small businesses make a lot of profit. Does that make us a crap hole?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf


This tells you, only the big population centers matter. That is not what was intended by the founders, even if it is a legal decision.


I’ve always wondered what would happen if huge numbers of the people in the big urban areas started moving to the more rural areas? With more and more people telecommuting, that certainly is a possibility. If the liberals really wanted to win, they should encourage their followers to do just that. That would mess you guys up good, wouldn’t it?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Irishhaf


If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.



I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.



Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.


We have an awful lot of undocumenteds in Texas. A WHOLE lot. They mow our lawns, trim our trees, replace our roofs, bus our restaurant tables, and even clean our houses and offices. They help our small businesses make a lot of profit. Does that make us a crap hole?


Nope!

Using that logic IMO it makes me think you support slavery.

edit on 10-5-2018 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Irishhaf


This tells you, only the big population centers matter. That is not what was intended by the founders, even if it is a legal decision.


I’ve always wondered what would happen if huge numbers of the people in the big urban areas started moving to the more rural areas? With more and more people telecommuting, that certainly is a possibility. If the liberals really wanted to win, they should encourage their followers to do just that. That would mess you guys up good, wouldn’t it?



Just like locust of the biblical days?

Don't worry, we are on to your tactics and laughing at your desperation admitting to it!



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Irishhaf


If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.

To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.



I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.



Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.


We have an awful lot of undocumenteds in Texas. A WHOLE lot. They mow our lawns, trim our trees, replace our roofs, bus our restaurant tables, and even clean our houses and offices. They help our small businesses make a lot of profit. Does that make us a crap hole?


Nope!

Using that logic IMO it makes me think you support slavery.


I would support anyone who worked hard to get here and worked hard to achieve part of the American Dream. Undocumented or not.




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join