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.

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Calls for Abolishing Electoral College: ‘Shadow of Slavery’s Power’

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

All right, because the US is a broad coalition of different regions with diverse peoples of diverse opinions.

Think of our EC system as similar to what a parliamentary system has to undergo in order to form a ruling coalition - they have to cobble together a broad group that more or less will agree and be a voting block. In this case, the winning candidate must form a coalition of broad appeal across those diverse groups of citizens in various states. Enough that they can win the elections in more states than their opponent, enough to win more EC votes.

What the left would like to do, is remove the idea of states as self-governing entities entirely and instead reduce the people to a squabbling set of insectionality groups with no political power except what they are pandered to by various politicians. This is different than the states which actually do have political power as self-governing entities.
edit on 11-10-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

All right, because the US is a broad coalition of different regions with diverse peoples of diverse opinions.

Think of our EC system as similar to what a parliamentary system has to undergo in order to form a ruling coalition - they have to cobble together a broad group that more or less will agree and be a voting block. In this case, the winning candidate must form a coalition of broad appeal across those diverse groups of citizens in various states. Enough that they can win the elections in more states than their opponent, enough to win more EC votes.


We still don't need it. We should just trust the people to make the right vote.

And consider the one election. if it was popular vote, Al Gore would have beaten Bush the first time. but only by 500,000 votes. That's not an electoral collage issue, it's a why didn't conservatives get out and vote issue.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

All right, because the US is a broad coalition of different regions with diverse peoples of diverse opinions.

Think of our EC system as similar to what a parliamentary system has to undergo in order to form a ruling coalition - they have to cobble together a broad group that more or less will agree and be a voting block. In this case, the winning candidate must form a coalition of broad appeal across those diverse groups of citizens in various states. Enough that they can win the elections in more states than their opponent, enough to win more EC votes.


But with the Electoral Collage in place a few states like California and New York always have more power than they should. Why give Liberals that much power?



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

We do need it to prevent mob rule by a few cities.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Because it's still more fair than a national popular vote.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SammyB0476
a reply to: amazing

We do need it to prevent mob rule by a few cities.



But we already have mob rule by New York and Southern California.

Consider this...There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, yet Republicans control congress.

All that matters is that people get out and vote. We've had plenty of Republican presidents.

Also consider this, the president is only 1 branch of government.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Because it's still more fair than a national popular vote.


I don't think so. If 500,000 more people wanted Al Gore for president then he should have been president. I never liked him since his wife tried to ban Heavy Metal in the 80s, and I don't like Trump either or Hillary but the people should actually get who they vote for.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Because it's still more fair than a national popular vote.


I don't think so. If 500,000 more people wanted Al Gore for president then he should have been president. I never liked him since his wife tried to ban Heavy Metal in the 80s, and I don't like Trump either or Hillary but the people should actually get who they vote for.


Consider, Trump was leading the national popular vote by a pretty good margin until the California returns came in. All of a sudden, he lost it by over a million.

Now, let's look at the EC vote margins.

Wyoming has 3 EC votes to California's 55. It will take 19 Wyomings to upset California. California has a population of 39.54 million vs. Wyoming's 579,315. It would take 68 1/4 Wyomings, if everyone voted exactly the same, to upset California.

So ... the EC is still more fair.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Because it's still more fair than a national popular vote.


I don't think so. If 500,000 more people wanted Al Gore for president then he should have been president. I never liked him since his wife tried to ban Heavy Metal in the 80s, and I don't like Trump either or Hillary but the people should actually get who they vote for.


Consider, Trump was leading the national popular vote by a pretty good margin until the California returns came in. All of a sudden, he lost it by over a million.

Now, let's look at the EC vote margins.

Wyoming has 3 EC votes to California's 55. It will take 19 Wyomings to upset California. California has a population of 39.54 million vs. Wyoming's 579,315. It would take 68 1/4 Wyomings, if everyone voted exactly the same, to upset California.

So ... the EC is still more fair.


I disagree, only because if we're such a liberal country, how come we have so many republican presidents, and senators?

You have to agree, that there have been so many republican missteps with minority, and female voters and even younger voters. That's the whole issue, get everyone fired up to vote!

Look at Trump...he got people fired up to vote. Hillary did not. Hillary would have won the electoral vote too if it would have been anyone other than Trump...I mean Cruz, Rubio? We just need better candidates.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Why?

Simply put because conservative people usually have a greater since of responsibility to begin with. You guys can sneer at tradition and the like all you want, but part of that is having a sense of duty, and voting every election is part of that. You can muster the sturm and drang very, very well, but when the day comes to have to go and actually fill out ballots, it doesn't happen as well as the outrage does.

I get it though ... getting off the couch to go to a polling place and vote takes time.

Not to mention, as much as you all talk about candidates, you guys need better issues.

People just don't like the idea of higher taxes to pay for government service when the government service they get is crap.

People don't like their local schools and paying higher taxes never takes care of that issue. And no matter how much politicos promise a chicken in every pot, they never deliver, and by the time the youth grow into responsible adults, most of them have this song and dance figured out if they've also figured out how to go vote reliably on election day.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Why?

Simply put because conservative people usually have a greater since of responsibility to begin with. You guys can sneer at tradition and the like all you want, but part of that is having a sense of duty, and voting every election is part of that. You can muster the sturm and drang very, very well, but when the day comes to have to go and actually fill out ballots, it doesn't happen as well as the outrage does.

I get it though ... getting off the couch to go to a polling place and vote takes time.

Not to mention, as much as you all talk about candidates, you guys need better issues.

People just don't like the idea of higher taxes to pay for government service when the government service they get is crap.

People don't like their local schools and paying higher taxes never takes care of that issue. And no matter how much politicos promise a chicken in every pot, they never deliver, and by the time the youth grow into responsible adults, most of them have this song and dance figured out if they've also figured out how to go vote reliably on election day.


Keep in mind thought that I'm an independent. I actually voted Libertarian this past election. I understand that there are serious issues with the Democratic party and democratic voters.

Remember that Democrats and Republicans never deliver. When's the last time a republican actually lowered taxes or gave us smaller government?

All i'm saying is that the popular vote is all we need. The electoral collage only gives California and New York too much power. There are plenty of Conservative voters out there, most people just don't vote.

The people know what they want. Give them the power.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
...
You have to trust the American people to make the right choice. I do. If Republicans or Democrats for that matter want to win elections they need to give us better candidates. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Just look at who actually lost elections Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Jimmy Carter, McCain, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter MOndale, It's not a conspiracy. We keep getting bad candidates.


I don't trust a large group of the U.S. since their agenda would turn this nation into Cuba/Venezuela... I was born in Cuba and experienced a socialist economy and a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship... That's what Ocasio and a large amount of leftists want because they are all too dumb to admit socialism/communism don't work.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Actually, my taxes did get lower a couple of times in the past, once the recent past.

And no the popular vote is not what we need.

I don't trust the people of California and New York to pick my president, and I am unwilling to have my vote rendered even less consequential than it already is.

The people know what they want?

Most of them want what I work very hard to have, but they don't want to work for in their turn. A direct popular vote let's them access my pocket book more easily.
edit on 11-10-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
...
Consider, Trump was leading the national popular vote by a pretty good margin until the California returns came in. All of a sudden, he lost it by over a million.

Now, let's look at the EC vote margins.

Wyoming has 3 EC votes to California's 55. It will take 19 Wyomings to upset California. California has a population of 39.54 million vs. Wyoming's 579,315. It would take 68 1/4 Wyomings, if everyone voted exactly the same, to upset California.

So ... the EC is still more fair.


California... one of the left-wing states that was giving illegals driver licenses which was selecting them to be able to vote, alongside Illinois, and at least ~10 -12 more states...

Several research groups have found that millions of illegals, and non-citizens, have voted in our Presidential elections.

Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?

And at least over half of the left do want illegals to be able to vote...

Democrats Want Illegals To Vote Because They Vote Democrat

As for the claim by "amazing" that the EC doesn't do much because only 5 Presidents were elected through the EC... If that was true POTUS Trump wouldn't have been able to MAGA after all the hard work Obama and his left-wing morons worked to destroy and divide this nation...


edit on 11-10-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and comment.



posted on Oct, 11 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Heck, you know what? After Obama told the world that South Africa was doing good work when the government has called for the death of white farmers, and after Obama alongside Clinton, Holder, etc have called for violence against the right yet they are the ones claiming "the conservatives/Republicans/true Libetarians/etc are the nazis and the dictators" when it is the left which once again is leading this nation, and the world towards disaster, violence and mayhem.



edit on 11-10-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Actually, my taxes did get lower a couple of times in the past, once the recent past.

And no the popular vote is not what we need.

I don't trust the people of California and New York to pick my president, and I am unwilling to have my vote rendered even less consequential than it already is.

The people know what they want?

Most of them want what I work very hard to have, but they don't want to work for in their turn. A direct popular vote let's them access my pocket book more easily.


I still think you're wrong. We're just as likely to get a republican president as a democratic president with the popular vote. Nothing changes except that every vote actually counts and liberal strongholds like southern california don't have as much power.

If you research the past presidential elections you'll see that except for two recent elections every president would have won with popular vote.

It needs to happen.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: amazing
...
You have to trust the American people to make the right choice. I do. If Republicans or Democrats for that matter want to win elections they need to give us better candidates. It has nothing to do with anything else.

Just look at who actually lost elections Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, Jimmy Carter, McCain, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter MOndale, It's not a conspiracy. We keep getting bad candidates.


I don't trust a large group of the U.S. since their agenda would turn this nation into Cuba/Venezuela... I was born in Cuba and experienced a socialist economy and a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship... That's what Ocasio and a large amount of leftists want because they are all too dumb to admit socialism/communism don't work.


Here's where you're wrong, most liberals, democrats or moderates don't want cuba or venuzuala. This country also has 3 branches of government, so even when we get a liberal president, like Obama, we still don't turn into a socialist country.

Keep in mind that most people that talk about "democratic socialism" or "social" programs are talking about some of the programs that work in the scandinavian countrys or simple safety net programs, so that old people don't die in the streets, basically.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Actually, my taxes did get lower a couple of times in the past, once the recent past.

And no the popular vote is not what we need.

I don't trust the people of California and New York to pick my president, and I am unwilling to have my vote rendered even less consequential than it already is.

The people know what they want?

Most of them want what I work very hard to have, but they don't want to work for in their turn. A direct popular vote let's them access my pocket book more easily.


I still think you're wrong. We're just as likely to get a republican president as a democratic president with the popular vote. Nothing changes except that every vote actually counts and liberal strongholds like southern california don't have as much power.

If you research the past presidential elections you'll see that except for two recent elections every president would have won with popular vote.

It needs to happen.


Your argument is disingenuous at best. With the EC, flyover country has way more a “chance” of equal voting representation against California/New York since the population of flyover country is disproportionally smaller vs California/NY than the diffrence in EC delegates with flyover country EC delegates combined. The founding fathers were very smart in this regard, ensuring one or two states couldn’t control the country to the detriment of the other 48 states (though the numbers were different back then).

The EC is one of the last checks and balances preventing the far left from turning the US into another 3rd world #hole country through demonstrably proven failures in extreme socialist policies.



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

Actually, my taxes did get lower a couple of times in the past, once the recent past.

And no the popular vote is not what we need.

I don't trust the people of California and New York to pick my president, and I am unwilling to have my vote rendered even less consequential than it already is.

The people know what they want?

Most of them want what I work very hard to have, but they don't want to work for in their turn. A direct popular vote let's them access my pocket book more easily.


I still think you're wrong. We're just as likely to get a republican president as a democratic president with the popular vote. Nothing changes except that every vote actually counts and liberal strongholds like southern california don't have as much power.

If you research the past presidential elections you'll see that except for two recent elections every president would have won with popular vote.

It needs to happen.


Your argument is disingenuous at best. With the EC, flyover country has way more a “chance” of equal voting representation against California/New York since the population of flyover country is disproportionally smaller vs California/NY than the diffrence in EC delegates with flyover country EC delegates combined. The founding fathers were very smart in this regard, ensuring one or two states couldn’t control the country to the detriment of the other 48 states (though the numbers were different back then).

The EC is one of the last checks and balances preventing the far left from turning the US into another 3rd world #hole country through demonstrably proven failures in extreme socialist policies.


How do you relate that to the fact that only 2 recent presidents wouldn't have won?

That means that out of almost 50 elections the popular vote mirrors the electoral college vote. Meaning that every vote would count. Isn't that what we want? Every vote to count? Because as it stands now, California for example will always go democrat. So even if a million republican voters in california vote republican, they're votes do not count. How is that fair? I would go so far as to say that hundreds of thousands of republican voters in california never vote...because why should they?
edit on 15-10-2018 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

The EC can be modified to be tied to counties rather than whole states. That system will be abused too though.

However the system is changed it should be in the direction of going away from mob rule and to giving everyone a voice that matters, otherwise Presidents will cater even more to coastal states as that is how you win.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join