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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Thanks again for the replies folks, especially since you've started debating each other (as US voters), I see a debate similar to my questions about the number of EC votes a state gets. Wyoming has 3 but a population of half a million or so. When you compare it to Cali they sure look disproportional in favour of Wyoming to me.
Please do argue your case, this is interesting reading for me.




posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




Wyoming has 3 but a population of half a million or so. When you compare it to Cali they sure look disproportional in favour of Wyoming to me.

The states elect the president. The people do not. That's what the Constitution says. It says nothing about proportionality. The electoral college is somewhat of a kludge.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Do you agree or disagree with that system?
I'm grateful for the factual answer but I'm interested in your opinion as a citizen.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

All things considered, and in light of the Constitutional specifications, yes.

It's all a work in progress, after all.

We the People, and so on.

Two steps forward, one back.

Maybe.

I don't know. I'm a citizen.

edit on 10/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

All things considered, and in light of the Constitutional specifications, yes.
Even Wyoming getting 3 EC votes in a state of only half a million people? I would be troubled with that if I was a US citizen.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

So, you don't understand the concept of the Constitutional specifications in spite of it being explained to you.

Or are you asking if there are things about the Constitution that I find troubling? Yes, there are.

But we are a nation of laws.
edit on 10/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: putnam6

Yes, I know this. tks though.


was just replying in general....



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
No, I just said that Wyoming is over represented. 180,000 citizens or so per EC vote, while Cali has half a million or so citizens per EC vote. Defend that, and don't deflect with questioning my understanding of it. I've learned lots in this thread, and the dishing out of EC votes seems unrepresentative to me.
...and yes yes I know, you don't mind that it is unrepresentative, and was never meant to be by the founding fathers, blah etc



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

No, I just said that Wyoming is over represented.

And I said that the Constitution says nothing about the election of the president having anything to do with representation.

Try this; the president is the chief executive, the position is not one of representation but of administration. It is a unique position. The president is not my representative. To say the least.
edit on 10/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Like I said, blah, you never share your opinion on things though, just facts, like 'it's the law' and that is the end of it.
If you wanna chat opinions like is Wyoming over represented in the EC votes count then please do, but your sterile factual based conversation I ain't interested in sorry.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yeah.

Facts have no place in a rational discussion.

You want me to make stuff up?




Or are you asking if there are things about the Constitution that I find troubling? Yes, there are.

edit on 10/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Thats where its up to the Alaskan senator and representatives to contact he president when the state or people need something.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yeah.

Facts have no place in a rational discussion.

You want me to make stuff up?

Oh don't debate like a child, you knew full well the context when I referred to facts. We know it is a fact that Wyoming has 3 EC votes for a population of half a million, while Cali gets 1 EC vote per half a million people. Stop deflecting, do you agree with that specific anomaly or not?



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


Oh don't debate like a child, you knew full well the context when I referred to facts.
Ah. Ad hom. Good.


Stop deflecting, do you agree with that specific anomaly or not?

I dislike repeating myself.

edit on 10/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Oh okay, interesting debate style you have but I'll leave you to it



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

You find that using facts is an interesting debating style?

edit on 10/31/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


I feel like I answer this question every four years to many people so it's nice to see it in the two year mid-break. The reason the electoral collage makes sense in America:

When we were founded, the idea was not as "One Nation State" but of "Fifty separate Nation States United under one Banner" The idea was always to have 50 separate states acting somewhat independently while having one voice for the outside world. The original idea would be a federal system to govern trade, war and treaties with outside countries, but within our own borders we would act as 50 separate states.


Now with that said, The reason the electoral collage makes sense is because it gives every state a voice in the outcome of who the president will be.

IF it was a popular vote only, all the campaigning would happen in California, New York, Florida and Texas, and further then that, in their populous cities only. America would become tyranny by the populated cities, no one would care about Wisconsin, Alabama, Utah or other states without such a large population. Which would mean all the money going towards these cities as a candidate can say "My policy is to give all our money to California, New York Florida and Texas, and Alabama should be taxed at 100%!!!" that of course is an exaggeration but you get the point.


Our electoral collage system works beautifully, and most states DO bound their electors, and in any respect America is build and several systems of checks and balances, and the electoral system is just one of those checks and balances. It ensures all of America has a vote, it ensures every state has a voice, and it's THE reason why I always vote because I know I have a voice.


I hope this answered your question but to go on further "When Hillary won the popular vote" that was because of the millions in California... I don't want California deciding who is President.



To me this only goes to show how flawed the 2 party system really is. The American version of democracy is based on centralized control. This is only possible as long as you only have two parties. Even at state level you are consolidating power to a narrow spectrum.

If you instead had a wide demoratic system, that at the same time made it a bit easier for new parties to sign up and be voted into the chambers, you'd get a more diverse debate and subsequently care for a much wider base of the population.

Life is nuanced, it's not black and white. The 2 party system is exactly black and white no matter how hard one tries to grey it out.

Ofcourse a system based on several parties, still tend to gather around 1 or 2 persons they'd like to see head of government at the next election, but afterwards you'd see a much more democratic debate and legislation going on since parties will have different and opposing view across all subjects.

Some might like guns, but also love to help immigrants.
Some might like liberal economics, but dislike waging continous wars.
And so on.

I'd take that any day over choosing one or two evils



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Wyoming actually gets the short end of it.

Absolute minimum of representation in Congress, and the EC, of course.

That's the point of the EC, Wyoming gets its say in the matter. ...and given how close elections can be, it's possible that it could matter to a huge extent.

...and in order for those votes to be the actual will of the people of Wyoming, those folks all need to vote--otherwise, you're handing over that responsibility to others--others who may not have your best interests in mind.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull
Cali citizens get 1 EC vote per half a million or so people but Wyoming gets 3 EC votes for half a million or so people.
It doesn't seem like the short straw to me. How would you justify that? Because it's in the constitution? No critical analysis of if the constitution is fair and just?
I'm playing Devils advocate here mate, and learning at the same time.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Because sadly the general dumb public is not smart enough to make such important decisions.

Liberals would vote for a kardashian of given the chance.

Communist China learned this a time ago

According to liberals, a president should have some strange prerequisites. Trans, bi sexual, part foreigner.

They don't pick the legitimate candidates



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join