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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

obvious question - on how many occassions has an electrooal collage officer voted counter top the popular vote in his // her state ?

my opinion is - that if each EC officer votes in accordance with the popular vote for thier state - the system works perfectly - as it prevents puplation cenres marginalising rural states

california currently has a pop of 55 million - thats nearly 1/8 the entire USA - and outnumbers the 10 smallest states




posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
Then you can begin the debate of, "if there has to be so many restrictions on how votes count, why is the entire place still just one country?"

To explain:

Before someone comes along and calls me an idiot since this is the Mud Pit: Yes, I understand that the electoral college is good for the US as a whole. After all, if we went majority, we'd ALMOST always have a Democratic president, and that could ultimately lead to a significant portion of the country not getting all of their "needs" met. "Needs" meaning "wants" in this case. Example: The majority of folks in Wyoming are probably concerned with completely different things than folks in NYC.

To me, this logically leads to the question: why, if there are areas of the country that are so vastly different in their wants/needs, is there only 1 person in charge of the whole place? I think it makes sense to have a few different "presidents" in charge of different regions of the country. West coast, Rocky Mountains, Midwest, etc.

I know that isn't a popular opinion here in the land of "America is the greatest thing that's ever been invented and it never does anything wrong ever now shut up about it", but I think logically, that makes perfect sense. If there's an entire population of the country that isn't represented by the president/government, shouldn't there be a way to change that so everyone feels properly represented?

I know it's way too complicated, and the only way it'd work is to make the US a few completely separate countries (which would ultimately be a bad thing, how would we divide assets, etc). But, it's a fun thought experiment.


Why complicate our system even more? Right now, each state elects their own government. Thus all states have their own governor and state legislature that create and enforce laws unique to each state needs.

Originally, the federal government only became involved with State issues when there was disputes between bordering states. Thus, we have the judicial branch of the federal government in place.

There is no need to break up America into sections, since we already have our own unique state government and representatives that each state populace elects.

Thus, this midterm election here in Michigan is important to me. We are electing our governor who on a state level is essentially our representative leader aka president of state.
edit on 10 31 2018 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
obvious question - on how many occassions has an electrooal collage officer voted counter top the popular vote in his // her state ?


Those are called 'Faithless Electors' and over the country's 240+ year history its happened 179 times with 71 of them being due to the person whom they should have been voting for dying. The only concerted time this occurred was in 1836 when the Virginia electors (23) did not vote for Richard Johnson but it still didn't change the outcome of that race.




edit on 31-10-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It also takes 19 Wyoming’s to override California’s 1 time. Would you rather one State is one vote? How about a per county vote, Ohio has 88 California has 58, Texas has 254 and Alaska has 19 despite being the largest state by far.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I don't see that number changing anytime soon since it was set in stone in the 1920s, but every 10 years I think they reestablish each state's number by giving each state 1 then dividing the rest up based on population, so in the end the big population states get the most even though the lowest is 1 for a good number of states. As example Ca had only 45 in 1980, and today they are 53. If we said 1 per 600,000 then CA would have 63 then while other stats would still have one. Trump had 73 more votes so even if we did that I still don't see Hillary winning.

We can always hope for CA to become their own country and then we can get back to normal...lol


Even a rule of 1 per 600,000 doesn't do much. It's why I personally believe the Wyoming rule idea is flawed, it results in many states in the 1 million population range being severely under represented. I think we need to rethink the 435 rule. Obviously we can't go too large, but 435 just doesn't accurately cover the population. Additionally, on a semi related note we need to do something about the way districts are drawn.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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


I think that what you're getting at is the role that each branch of our government is meant to have.

The President isn't supposed to represent anyone, they are supposed to be something of a mix between a head of state, and head of government. So something of a mix between your Queen and Prime Minister. Their role is supposed to be to guide the federal government in executing it's role over executive functions like foreign policy, law enforcement, and commerce.

Then our Congress is meant to be a two house system where the Senate is the representation of the states, and the House is the representation of the people.

Through years of mismanagement, all of this has been muddied and the senate now represents the people as super representatives, the house represents the people, and the President represents the people.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Wyoming actually gets the short end of it.


Not true at all. They have 2 representatives at the federal level, just the same as any other state. They also have a representative for just 600,000 people.

If you want to see someone who gets the short end of it, go look at Austin Texas. They have 2 million people, 1/14 of the states population, and despite the fact that Texas has 38 Representatives, not a single one of them has a district in Austin to represent the interests of that city.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Short answer, for president it doesn't matter.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I've been reading up on it since Trump became president but failed to win the popular vote, and I really don't understand how such a system ever came into being. It doesn't seem like democracy to me, especially when I read this...


There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
archives.gov
The whole thing seems ridiculous to me, either the presidential candidate won most votes or they didn't, this electoral college thing just smells like a big scam to me. I wouldn't support such a system in my country - Shouldn't Hilary be president because most people voted for her?

...what can say though, my head of state is decided by birthright, how's that for a completely undemocratic system...I'd vote the monarchy out in a heartbeat.


Because, each American's Vote shouldn't be equal...at least that's what those still in favor believe. They'll through out bs Rehtoric to justify this which is humorous at best but at the end of the day...some votes due to old laws, slavery, and land owners are more important than others.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.



Seems no one wants to answer your Wyoming Question plainly enough for you, so I'll give it a go:

Short Answer: Yes it's supremely fair and just.

Long Answer: Our States elect the president. Our FREE AND EQUAL States. we allow some states to have more Representatives in the House of Representatives due to population with ONE being the absolute minimum a state can have otherwise you run the risk of a state having no representation in the house, which would be gravely unjust. Then we have the Senate where every state gets two senators regardless, this was intended to give all the states and equal say in Senate.

Laws have to be passed in BOTH the house and the senate. The house was intended as to be a representation of the people and this is why States are allocated representatives by population. The Senate was intended as a representation of the states, which is why every state gets two.

So that's how representation works in the House and the Senate. The Electoral Collage System is SIMPLY the adding up of senators and congressman. Wyoming has two senators and 1 Congressman, i.e. 3 representatives. It's the best way to do it.

In the alternative, what you seem to be suggesting is TAKING AWAY representatives from Wyoming? or giving extra to California, which either would become extremely detrimental to an already fair and just system. You would be either Taking away Wyoming's ONLY voice in the congress and/or taking away a senator and saying they are not and equal state in our union. That would be the quickest way to destroy America and cause a lack of confidence in our systems as states now feel they have no say.

The beauty of it all? If you are in California and feel you aren't properly represented, you can of course feel free to live in Wyoming!
In fact that's one of the real miracles about our system. Because a lot of states have vastly different laws, while maintaining free and open borders, people are free to move to states where those laws more aligns with their own, without having to change all the laws in every state.

Some things work for some states that could never work for others, as they say



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.



Seems no one wants to answer your Wyoming Question plainly enough for you, so I'll give it a go:

Short Answer: Yes it's supremely fair and just.

Long Answer: Our States elect the president. Our FREE AND EQUAL States. we allow some states to have more Representatives in the House of Representatives due to population with ONE being the absolute minimum a state can have otherwise you run the risk of a state having no representation in the house, which would be gravely unjust. Then we have the Senate where every state gets two senators regardless, this was intended to give all the states and equal say in Senate.

Laws have to be passed in BOTH the house and the senate. The house was intended as to be a representation of the people and this is why States are allocated representatives by population. The Senate was intended as a representation of the states, which is why every state gets two.

So that's how representation works in the House and the Senate. The Electoral Collage System is SIMPLY the adding up of senators and congressman. Wyoming has two senators and 1 Congressman, i.e. 3 representatives. It's the best way to do it.

In the alternative, what you seem to be suggesting is TAKING AWAY representatives from Wyoming? or giving extra to California, which either would become extremely detrimental to an already fair and just system. You would be either Taking away Wyoming's ONLY voice in the congress and/or taking away a senator and saying they are not and equal state in our union. That would be the quickest way to destroy America and cause a lack of confidence in our systems as states now feel they have no say.

The beauty of it all? If you are in California and feel you aren't properly represented, you can of course feel free to live in Wyoming!
In fact that's one of the real miracles about our system. Because a lot of states have vastly different laws, while maintaining free and open borders, people are free to move to states where those laws more aligns with their own, without having to change all the laws in every state.

Some things work for some states that could never work for others, as they say


Very well said... we are very much into states rights instead of the power with the Fed. Gives us some flexibility all while under the protection of Uncle Sam where federal dollars keep the interstate highway system running for instance.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Thanks again for all the interesting replies folks

I'm reading up on mid-terms now, seems like there could be a bumpy road ahead depending on which side of the political divide you are on.
I've learned lots in this thread



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


It's always a bumpy road for me but it's mostly because I'm running over children that didn't flee the playground fast enough.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tekaran



This explained it for me.


Every citizen is entitled to one vote. Just because the population is concentrated where they live shouldn't mean their vote counts less.

Votes determine how the electoral college votes, unless the chosen goes against the vote, and then they simply become mud, so it rarely happens..



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
The beauty of it all? If you are in California and feel you aren't properly represented, you can of course feel free to live in Wyoming!
In fact that's one of the real miracles about our system. Because a lot of states have vastly different laws, while maintaining free and open borders, people are free to move to states where those laws more aligns with their own, without having to change all the laws in every state.

Some things work for some states that could never work for others, as they say


Being forced to move to hicksville in order to have more political say is not just. Several states are practically theocracies or third world countries and there should be zero economic, political, or financial incentive to move to them. Really, they shouldn't even exist.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
If you want to see a visual representation of why theres an electoral college go search images of the "2016 US election map by county".

Keep in mind that this is a depiction of the popular vote at a county level. Despite the fact Hillary won the overall popular vote, this puts into context how the majority of America voted.
Without the electoral college, the blue counties would, in most cases, dictate the outcome of the entire state and in some cases the entire US.

The Electoral College is a way for rural America to have a voice.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
I hear you can get a load of acres in Hicksville for the price of a decent car though, I'd be tempted, land in the UK is really expensive.

a reply to: PublishedShadow
I've seen that map, it's crazy isn't it. It's red all over except for a few counties.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

thanks - now had 30 min googling " failtless electors "



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

thanks - now had 30 min googling " failtless electors "
Lol, I've googled loads from this thread, been really interesting how the system works in the US, and also how US ATS members feel about it.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy


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.


Remember each state gets 2 Senator votes...

Well you do not understand we are 50 countries so to speak... So you do not have a problem if England went back into the EU and they gave voting power based on population? Lets say 1 vote per 500k. England would get 132 votes, Germany would get 166 votes, Netherlands would get 35 and a bunch of countries would get 10 to 20 votes. Sound all good to you?


edit on 31-10-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join