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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   

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



Works pretty good for our republic.




posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

She got Bette Davis eyes with contacts.

😁



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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



Works pretty good for our republic.


Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Popular vote!!!!??!??!???!!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:30 PM
link   
CA and NY gives you 84 votes. About 30% needed from 2 states, so if you can't win the other 70% out of 48 states is it vote of the people if those two states gave you the popular vote.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Popular vote!!!!??!??!???!!!!


Last time I look we were a republic of 50 united states....

Here is your popular vote...


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



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: seeker1963

She got Bette Davis eyes with contacts.

😁



Nah dude.... watch closely. All I can say is I would love to play poker with her. Her eyes give her away. They tell when she is bluffing!




I don't think I blinked that much after getting CS gassed in the military in training......


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



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   
It's not surprising so many on the left can't get the concept of the states and what they represent in our system of governance. If you don't believe in national borders, what would states mean to you?

It's shocking there's even a discussion about the electoral process. It's a pretty foundational concept. And if that can now be under attack, what you are really saying is you plan to scrap the very definition of "United States" as it has been understood for the entirety of its history.





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



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

The founders knew what they were doing. There is no reason that a few densely populated areas should decide everything for the whole nation. That's what Democrats want, because then they could control everything, but it wouldn't be a fair system.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Now I see it.

She's a "blink-o-matic" with energizer bunny batteries.

Better than Marie Osmond and Mariska Hargitay combined with double-vision 😃



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I think it needs to go.

We should have a popular vote for any election of a public official.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
People who are against the EC are the reason it exists. The end.


I do believe that is the first post of yours, that I have seen, that I agree with.
Having just had a coworker today mention wanting to abolish the EC.
I am impressed.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
I think it needs to go.

We should have a popular vote for any election of a public official.



Hitler would agree!



Let the MOB RULE! Death to those who oppose us......



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: seeker1963

Now I see it.

She's a "blink-o-matic" with energizer bunny batteries.

Better than Marie Osmond and Mariska Hargitay combined with double-vision 😃


I think she was groomed/abused as a child for her position of power. Think about the blinking thing. We all blink when we think we are about to be HIT! She was abuse as a child to learn to lie. Therefore she blinks when she speaks to the public knowing she is not telling the truth, but subconsciously worried about being punished for not doing what she was groomed to do?

Hey, if speculation is good for Kav. it's good for Gillibrand right?


She like her comrade Schumer would love to end the electoral college.

edit on 6-10-2018 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon


Those democratic states where people are given free stuff just to vote dem, shouldn't run the country IMO.


Let's start with WalletHub's annual list of the Most Federally Dependent States for 2018's Top 10 and add in some data. (Govs,

1. New Mexico - (R) Gov. Susana Martinez, (D) both
2. Kentucky - (R) Gov. Matt Bevin, (R) both
3. Mississippi - (R) Gov. Phil Bryant, (R) both
4. Alabama - (R) Gov. Kay Ivey, (R) both
5. West Virginia - (R) Gov. Jim Justice, (R) both
6. South Carolina - (R) Gov. Henry McMaster, (R) both
7. Arizona - (R) Gov. Doug Ducey, (R) both
8. Alaska - (I) Gov. Bill Walker (an R before 2014), (R) both
9. Montana - (D) Gov. Steve Bullock, (R) both
10. Louisiana - (D) Gov. John Bel Edwards, (R) both

So there you go, of the top 10 most dependent on federal tax dollars, that's 7 Republican governors, 2 Democratic governors and 1 independent governor who used to a be a Republican. 9 out of 10 of the state legislatures are completely controlled by Republicans and 1 by Democrats, in a state with a Republican governor.

Should we do members of Congress too just for good measure? Funny how what you think is true is practically the reverse of reality.

The electoral college is an antiquated vestige, created at a time when there were 13 states and when the concern that one or two of them would dominate the federal government to the detriment of the rest was a thing. States had a lot more autonomy and there weren't a lot em. It was also a time when there were no presidential primaries — the first of those wouldn't happen for more than a century.

Is there another Western democracy where a candidate can win a majority of the vote and the other guy becomes the chief executive?

Republicans like it for an obvious reason. It's like Affirmative Action for the rural vote and rural votes tend to favor conservatives. It's like permanent gerrymandering in presidential elections. If not for the EC, Republicans would have only won 1 of the last 5 presidential elections.

The EC allows Republicans to believe that they're part of some sort of "silent majority" even when the Republican loses the popular vote and pretend that they have some sort of popular mandate. And it means in a state like mine, NJ, the 4th least dependent btw, my vote for president effectively counts as 1/3 of that of a person in a state like Wyoming. Why is that legit? There's no actual concern that some politician is going to give his home state some sort of unilateral control over the levers of government. Which brings me to another point which is that EC is so much less about states than it is parties which is not how it was envisioned either I'm sure.

And of course the other purpose of the EC, making electors a stopgap against a highly motivated populist minority from installing some lunatic despot, has essentially been neutered, never used to any effect and if it were, that'd probably end in blood in the streets.

So yeah, to hell with the EC. I'm tired of paying more taxes and having less say.

Let the EC ever start favoring the Democrats (which is nearly impossible to imagine so perpetual baked in advantage for whichever is the conservative party) and watch how Republican opinions flip.
edit on 2018-10-6 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


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


Okay? And if you exclude Texas, Clinton would have won by nearly 4 million instead of 3. What's the point? More Americans voted for the candidate who lost. This isn't 1 state 1 vote. Nobody would go for that but somehow if you do just enough apportioning that the party that holds the biggest sway in the least densely populated areas has a built-in advantage, the EC is all but gifted by God.

The Founding Fathers also built a system that basically guarantees two party rule despite a general distaste for political parties. And the Founding Fathers also didn't feel compelled to let citizens choose each parties candidate. You ready to toss out primaries and go back to letting party bosses pick candidates?
edit on 2018-10-6 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   
The only thing I disagree with is that I believe each state should have 3 votes a piece. Not based on population. ALL are even.

It still works but I feel that if speech is free than so should our right to live where we want...and have equal representation whether it is Manhattan or North Dakota.

Where will the argument be when the POTUS takes Cali in 2020.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
The only thing I disagree with is that I believe each state should have 3 votes a piece. Not based on population. ALL are even.

It still works but I feel that if speech is free than so should our right to live where we want...and have equal representation whether it is Manhattan or North Dakota.

Where will the argument be when the POTUS takes Cali in 2020.


You have more faith in my state than I do.
I do not see Cali voting Trump or another republican in 2020.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

That's a very good way to put it.

My only suggestion would be to alter it from a winner takes all, to a splitting the electoral vote by percentages.

That might induce the candidates to actually visit some of the country that heretofore they skip. Perhaps then, people might feel that the candidates actually give a rats patooty, and turn out in greater numbers.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Somethingsamiss

For an office that is for the entire nation, three states (california, new york, and one of your choice) could control the election results for an entire nation?

Yeah, no. Popular votes for state offices, sure, such as Governor. Do you want, depending upon where you live, the Five Boroughs of New York deciding who the mayor of Albany is? That, in essence, is exactly what you're proposing.



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
It's not surprising so many on the left can't get the concept of the states and what they represent in our system of governance. If you don't believe in national borders, what would states mean to you?

It's shocking there's even a discussion about the electoral process. It's a pretty foundational concept. And if that can now be under attack, what you are really saying is you plan to scrap the very definition of "United States" as it has been understood for the entirety of its history.


Yahtzee! You hit the nail on the head with that one. That's the key; they don't want the nation to exist. It's even aditted in many marches/protests; they chant, "No borders, no nations!".




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join