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 is the point in voting if the electoral college decides the president?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The Electoral College has another function as well. Adolf Hitler or more modern, Vladimir Putin, would win the popular vote based on their charisma, but their policies would be most wholeheartedly anti-American.

The electors in the EC have the option to vote freely, despite some states making it a crime, as a last ditch effort to prevent a disaster of a poor but popular president getting in. But there is one last fail safe in Congressional confirmation of the the EC vote. Some people think the Chief Justice could refuse to administer the oath of office as a final out, but in reality it can be administered by anyone. His oath given on the airfield was a federal judge, but was not nor ever served on the Supreme Court.

But the reason for the “free vote” of the EC is to take care of a problem that comes to light after the election but before the EC vote. As for the EC itself, that vote used to happen in DC so the Congress could confirm the vote. But over time changed to State capitols with authentication to the results sent in by messenger and later telegraph.




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You're right. California and New York should decide every American election. That wont cause problems at all.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You're right. California and New York should decide every American election. That wont cause problems at all.
Lol, I'm just asking questions here. Another one then, if there was no electoral vote is it fair to say that the Cali/New York vote would produce a Democrat president every election?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Terza
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Now I am just confused again.

So it IS swaying outcomes for people in an area.

gosh I'll just back out of this, I just don't get it... and seems I never will. 1 person 1 vote, unless you're in some area.


Let me attempt to explain it using a more familiar analogy.....a home owners association (HOA) in a gated community of 3 homes.


The HOA decides the big items that affect the entire community. Such as interfaces with the outside world; trash removal, cable service contracts, landscapers, plumbers, electricians, etc... It decides the external aspect of the community; color of homes, how the front lawn must be kept, whether external flags or decorations can be displayed, etc..

Now, each home has occupants living in that home as their legal address, broken down as:
(note: Voting age is the ability to vote toward the HOA decisions listed above)

Home 1: A man and a woman of legal voting age (2 votes total)
Home 2: Two adult men, an adult child, and 2 children (3 votes total)
Home 3: Two adult women, two adult men, a grandfather, an adult aunt, and 2 children (6 votes total)

Imagine a democratic system in place that the group with the most votes wins and gets to decide all these things for the entire community (1 vote per adult). In this scenario, home 3 could control all decisions since their 6 votes would always be more than the other two homes with only 5 votes combined. So, one voting block now controls everything with the other voting blocks never having any real say in any decisions, ever. If home 3 decides that no holiday decorations can be displayed, homes 1&2 cannot override that or have any input at all.

Imagine the implementation of an Electoral College system where each group that votes only represents their single home (1 home 1 vote). In this scenario it would require 2 out of 3 homes agree to any decisions. Home 3 may have 2 votes one way, and 4 votes the other, the 4 votes wins and decides for that home only. But, it requires another home to also agree. So if home 1 agrees, then it is 2 votes to 1 on that issue.

See, this system prevents a single voting block that has a higher state population (i.e. NYC, LA, Chicago, etc) from making all the decisions for every state, forever locking out the lesser populated states from any decision. If that were the case, then the campaigns would have zero reason to do anything the less populated states wanted, effectively silencing their vote.

I have used this scenario to describe this before to those that cannot understand the EC. Making it about their home and decisions being made for them seems to better explain the concept.

I hope it helped.


edit on 10/30/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You're right. California and New York should decide every American election. That wont cause problems at all.
Lol, I'm just asking questions here. Another one then, if there was no electoral vote is it fair to say that the Cali/New York vote would produce a Democrat president every election?


Yes. That is exactly what would happen.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It is not a democracy. Its a republic.

The united states started as an agreement among states. each state determines the federal topography. Its not a direct representation...its a representation of states, who tally up the votes of their residents.

The electoral college is how this is executed. A state gets its crap together then takes it on the road to the electoral college to cast its votes.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You're right. California and New York should decide every American election. That wont cause problems at all.
Lol, I'm just asking questions here. Another one then, if there was no electoral vote is it fair to say that the Cali/New York vote would produce a Democrat president every election?


Yes. This is known as a tyranny of the majority.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Thanks for all the replies folks

I knew ATS could break it down into something a child could understand lol
I'm glad I asked now, your nation seems pretty unique, and it is to be fair, but if it works for you then it don't need fixing.
...now how to abolish the constitutional monarchy in my country, hmm.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You're right. California and New York should decide every American election. That wont cause problems at all.
Lol, I'm just asking questions here. Another one then, if there was no electoral vote is it fair to say that the Cali/New York vote would produce a Democrat president every election?


Not Necessarily. Ronald Regan was elected by both those states. From 1968-1998 A Republican won California every time. In RECENT history it appears that way, but nothing is ever guaranteed.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


i suspect if you decided to look into it you would find that most leaders of countries with a freely elected government actually have things in place very similar to the electoral collage. no by the winner of the popular vote, ie the person the most people in the entire country vote for.

to simplify what the electoral collage does is this. the country is broken down into areas. each area votes for who they want a President in their respective area. the winner of each area counts as one vote in the electoral collage. and in the end whoever wins the most votes in the electoral collage, in other words the person who wins in the most areas becomes President. in fact the only part of the electoral collage that needs to be fixed is the fact that for some reason some of those votes are not enforced as they should be as the actual will of the people (those who have the most votes), and that they can actually vote against the will of the people in their area. each vote in each area needs to be forced to follow the will of the people in their area and vote for under all circumstances the person that their area has actually voted for in the majority.


and as i said i suspect if you look you will see that most free countries that are democracies actually do similar. take Canada for instance. Canadians do not actually vote for their country's leader as such. instead the Prime Minister of Canada is the leader of the party who wins the most "seats" in Parliament, (Canada's version of Congress). again just as in the US the Leader of the country is NOT the winner of the "popular vote", (ie the leader who wins the most total votes of the country), but is also chosen by who has the most votes, in the most areas of the country, just like in the US.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor
Haha it gets even more technical now!
...as a side issue I've been reading more on the different states and Wyoming surprised me, bigger than the UK but only half a million or so people there. Now that seems like a place to really get lost in the woods!

It seems strange that Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes though...


Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman.
California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each.
Huff PostThe 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1.
Now I'm really confused!



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
30 years ago when I heard about the Electoral College, I went to a library and read about it, took me 30 min. nowdays you can google it and learn about it in 5 min.....simple!



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: manuelram16
And your point is what? I wanted a discussion and to read opinions from other ATS members.
I'm glad I asked, been some excellent replies.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: PsychoEmperor
Haha it gets even more technical now!
...as a side issue I've been reading more on the different states and Wyoming surprised me, bigger than the UK but only half a million or so people there. Now that seems like a place to really get lost in the woods!

It seems strange that Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes though...


Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman.
California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each.
Huff PostThe 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1.
Now I'm really confused!


To extend my analogy, think of the land area of the state as the land area of the home (i.e. estate). The land area decides the number of representatives for that home. In turn, the larger the more representation (ie, how many votes each home can have).

That prevents a small state with a very high population density from counting more than a large state that is mostly empty. Each of there would have differing needs, city vs rural. SO, having the cities always deciding what the rural areas can do and not do is also not correct. Each state (home, i.e. "estate") has a say and is as equal as possible. Now, that does not get into the concept of Gerrymandering....which is how the estate is sectioned off to decide on those representatives.

Clear as mud, right?


edit on 10/30/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Now, that does not get into the concept of Gerrymandering....which is how the estate is sectioned off to decide on those representatives.

Clear as mud, right?

Haha yes!

We have similar trickery in the UK, the boundaries of the areas Member's of Parliament are sometimes tinkered with by the government in power...nearly always to increase their chances in the next election.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Now, that does not get into the concept of Gerrymandering....which is how the estate is sectioned off to decide on those representatives.

Clear as mud, right?

Haha yes!

We have similar trickery in the UK, the boundaries of the areas Member's of Parliament are sometimes tinkered with by the government in power...nearly always to increase their chances in the next election.





posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Ill make it simple each state has a day in who becomes president. It isn't one race its 50 to get that states votes you have to win that states elections. This is far more fair that just trying to go off total population. If you removed California from the election she lost the popular vote. You could do the same by removing New york both these states populations are huge compared to to most of them.

If the popular vote 2as all that was needed you could win 6 states in theory and take the presidency. No need to care what the rest of the country thinks or wants. Just spend your time in florida Illinois new York california and florida. And get either texas or north carolina or georgia. Get those 6 and you win.

The founding fathers set it up so a president has to represent all the states. You cant win a campaign by making promises to 6 states. Imagine what politicians would promise these states if thats all they needed.

And how long do you think the other states would stay knowing that 5 or 6 states decides the fate of all of them
edit on 10/30/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It is not a democracy. Its a republic.

The united states started as an agreement among states. each state determines the federal topography. Its not a direct representation...its a representation of states, who tally up the votes of their residents.

The electoral college is how this is executed. A state gets its crap together then takes it on the road to the electoral college to cast its votes.


It is both. A country can infact be both it is not either or.

If by democracy you mean direct or pure democracy then you are correct. However the word democracy also means other forms of indirect democracy such as representative democracy so in that sense you are incorrect.

Basically democracy in the modern context just means you vote in elections, which the USA certainly does.


The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy. And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.


www.washingtonpost.com... .77a5aec7e305




Definition of 'democracy'
1. uncountable noun Democracy is a system of government in which people choose their rulers by voting for them in elections. ...the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe. ...the pro-democracy movement. Synonyms: self-government, republic, commonwealth, autonomy More Synonyms of democracy
2. countable noun A democracy is a country in which the people choose their government by voting for it. The new democracies face tough challenges.
3. uncountable noun Democracy is a system of running organizations, businesses, and groups in which each member is entitled to vote and take part in decisions.


www.collinsdictionary.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
Thanks for all the replies folks

I knew ATS could break it down into something a child could understand lol
I'm glad I asked now, your nation seems pretty unique, and it is to be fair, but if it works for you then it don't need fixing.
...now how to abolish the constitutional monarchy in my country, hmm.


America is unique not always in a good way but unique no less, so much population,so much diversity.Throw in a crippling Civil war in its early decades,all plays a part in what we collectively will or wont tolerate. If we didnt have something like this to counter balance popular vote, sooner or later regions or states would break away, when they consistently disagree with the federal government and independently we are much less than collectively.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
You cant win a campaign by making promises to 6 states. Imagine what politicians would promise these states if thats all they needed.

And how long do you think the other states would stay knowing that 5 or 6 states decides the fate of all of them

The founding fathers seemed to have it all sewn up all those years ago. Places like Wyoming or Nebraska just wouldn't have any say if it was down to the popular vote. This has been interesting reading, I'm all set for the next POTUS election...now I just need to figure out what these mid-terms are all about, time to do some googling lol




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join