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.

 

what do you think of the electoral college?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Before you answer here are some facts that might interest you,


Electoral College. A 39 second read (Well worth reading and passing along).

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation? The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense. Do share this.

It needs to be widely known and understood. There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country! But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment. Well worth the 39 seconds to read? Now please pass it on.


www.onepoliticalplaza.com...

Does it surprise anyone to here this info?

Those democratic states where people are given free stuff just to vote dem, shouldn't run the country IMO.
edit on 5-10-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)


ETA last thread got closed because it was all copy pasta
edit on 5-10-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
It works !!!

Can you imaging what U.S. History would look like if the EC was never thought of !!

We see enough Mob Rule with the States as it is.

💥S&F💥

Mandela was never there or was he?



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon
About 1/4 of the total population lives in New York, Texas, and California.

Why should 3 states get to dictate 47 others?



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
It's a major detriment to "our democracy".
.......



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
It worked exactly the way the founding fathers designed it. In 2016 Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million excluding California .

To bad California you don’t own the country.


Q: what do you call 3 million Californians in their mothers basement ?

A: whine cellars
edit on 5-10-2018 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I could be wrong but when I look at election maps thru the years red covers most of the country by land area. I know that doesn't represent population. However, folks from Texas or Vermont have different needs and wants. Without the current system, guy from Kansas that has 5,0000 acres of corn with 5 family workers can be out voted by one LA Starbucks.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

Why do you think that?



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

In their infinite wisdom, the United States' founders created the Electoral College 


That's bull snip ... the founders didn't bestow the Electoral College on us because of some "infinite wisdom".

It was the only way they could form the union; they "compromised" .... I know that's an evil dirty word today; but if our founders had any more wisdom then we do today than that's it my friends.

They had a bigger problems than each other and so they worked out their differences and found ways to make their government amicably for all.

And that's why all the talk about replacing the Electoral College just because one doesn't like the outcome of one presidential election is just mental masterbation. Those states that benefit from it (ie see the balance of power equalized) will never give it up. They will end the union first.

Full disclosure; I live in New York ... pretty please get rid of the electoral college so that my states issues become all that matters in a presidential election.
edit on 5-10-2018 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

The founding fathers set it up that way because the thought that the majority of citizens were politically naive and the states should elect a President, not the mob.

Some quotes from them, Constitutional Convention, 1787...


"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787


They knew that an unscrupulous bunch of people in positions of wealth power could usurp the will of the People.

The Democrats don't like the notion of an electoral college because they, through the media, now control the mob.

I think it was a wonderful idea, personally.




posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Aallanon

The founding fathers set it up that way because the thought that the majority of citizens were politically naive and the states should elect a President, not the mob.


Doesn't make sence; they could have set up an election system wherein each state had power equally to their size and population.

It would have taken the vote away from the majority of citizens (who where thought of as naive) but still leave larger states with greater power.

That's not what happened.

It was more than keeping the naive away ... it was a balancing of power.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
It's a major detriment to "our democracy".
.......



and a major math equalizer for "The Republic".

.......😎



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The most astounding part of that entire story is....there are 2 million mental defectives packed into 319 square miles of NYC.
Good place to stay away from.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
It worked exactly the way the founding fathers designed it. In 2016 Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million excluding California .

To bad California you don’t own the country.


Q: what do you call 3 million Californians in their mothers basement ?

A: whine cellars


A: MS13

😯



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The idea behind this system, is that a state would be given a number of votes that would be cast in congress for President. It would also mean that the people running for president would have to build a coalition of the voting population to get those people to support that candidate.

Now the only problem that I can see, is the entire winner take all system. It is wrong and it cuts out the voice of a part of the population.

There are a few who would call for its removal, however, it would mean that there would be some states that would no longer have a voice in the choosing of the President. For example, take the city of LA and the state of Montana. The city has a far greater population, and its votes would over take those of that state, and the people of Montana would no longer have a voice, or feel like such.

I think that they should do away with the winner take all, and make the elector votes to be more proportional to the public, where the percentage would reflect more on what the public.

I used that system on the 2016 election and the outcome was far more surprising and dynamic, as neither candidate got the required number of votes.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

Mob Rule has Chuck Schumer.

That's your ++

🎃



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Excellent points about how necessary the Electoral College is to ensure a fair representation of the entire country. I had never seen the 2016 election demonstrated like that. Thanks for sharing.

EDIT: Upon further review of the provided source, I have to remain skeptical of the accuracy of these statistics. I didn’t see where this information was collected from, how it was accurately obtained or verified. It may be a true statement, but the provided source doesn’t offer a lot of confidence.
edit on 5-10-2018 by Assassin82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

They also saw the "Future" MSM controlling the "knowledge".

👧👱‍♀️🤷



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

They knew the votes could be bought by giving away free stuff.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: MisterSpock

Why do you think that?


CNN told me and I can't think for myself.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

Thanks for your honesty. LOL




top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join