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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.


The issue is one of population density, and lack of general services in the US. The land can be cheap, but you pay for it in time. It requires a lot of upkeep, you might have a 1 hour drive to a post office, your only store could be a Walmart, there's no public transportation, you're stuck with something like a run down bar rather than craft breweries, emergency services are slow to respond (if they're available at all), commutes to work are long (in some cases you might be looking at a 3 hour drive each way, every day), utilities are spotty at best, and so on.

Some people like turning the clock back 50 years and living a simpler life. There's nothing wrong with that for those that do, but they shouldn't be given significantly more say in elections because they're choosing to live away from society.




posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.


The real interesting part of US politics though isn't our federal elections. The federal government gets the most attention, but of our three levels of government, city/state/federal, the federal government has the least amount of impact on our daily lives.

States are essentially all powerful, but have next to zero oversight and city government tends to be a cesspool of corruption. Most of the time, there simply isn't enough resources available to actually watch these levels of government.
edit on 31-10-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Sound all good to you?
No, I voted to leave the EU and be a sovereign nation of 60 odd million people.

...your superstate is like one world government as I see it lol



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.


The issue is one of population density, and lack of general services in the US. The land can be cheap, but you pay for it in time. It requires a lot of upkeep, you might have a 1 hour drive to a post office, your only store could be a Walmart, there's no public transportation, you're stuck with something like a run down bar rather than craft breweries, emergency services are slow to respond (if they're available at all), commutes to work are long (in some cases you might be looking at a 3 hour drive each way, every day), utilities are spotty at best, and so on.

Some people like turning the clock back 50 years and living a simpler life. There's nothing wrong with that for those that do, but they shouldn't be given significantly more say in elections because they're choosing to live away from society.


It seems to be like a lot of your responses are from things you've "heard" without having any actual real world knowledge. Your response of how you "think" it is reminds of if I asked a typical American how life in Saudi Arabia is and the response is "They have camels and there is a lot of sand!"

America does not believe places "Shouldn't exist" and again, everyone in America is free to live anywhere they wish to in America, and that IS a beautiful thing. If you don't like "Hicksville" as you call it, don't live there. There are plenty of people living in these places and are happy and have all the same conveniences of any city. There are also people who would complain about how anyone can live in a city with all the noise and lack of safety. They would also be entitled to that opinion which again is beautiful because if you don't' like the city, don't live there, if you don't' like the rural areas, don't' live there, if you don't' like any of it, then you are just a negative Nancy, and that's sad



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

I specifically said in my previous post that if people want to live in those areas, that's fine.

What I questioned was how much additional political say they should have for doing so. Clearly they need some sort of disproportionate amount so that their concerns will actually be heard, but how much is too much or too little? If you fall back to the argument that the Constitution says X, then I'll shoot back that we don't currently apportion Representatives according to what the Constitution says, and even if we did... why should we take it on blind faith that what was written is correct? Any value needs to be justified.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
While I do not support Trump, I support the electoral college because it gives the rural vote(that accounts for much more territory) more power of the urban vote.

Without it, NYC, Chicago, and LA could decide every election.

Here is a map from the 2016 election that sums up what I mean:


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



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

...your superstate is like one world government as I see it lol


And England would be like one State to us


That is the hard part for people to understand that each state basically has their own President, Congress, Military, Supreme court etc. The People elect their representatives to the Federal Government in the form of Congress by popular vote and Congress elects the President by electoral votes. Most states give all electoral votes to the majority winner and two states actually split up the votes if the situation comes up. If CA allowed each rep to vote party lines then 14 of the 53 votes would have gone to Trump, as example.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


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.


If 485 can not get it done then how would 1000 be better? That is a 1000 paychecks too...talk about expanding Government. I get it...the left in this case wants a way to account for more votes, I'm sure if CA was 80% republican then the left would not be talking much about votes.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Terza
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Can someone actually explain it though?

I still don't get it, from all that waffle. Are you not all united states electing one single president? Should not each single vote just be counted? yay or nay?

I admit, I am simple. But all these shades of gray confuse me when all I expect to see is black and white.


Watch the short video 727sky presented in his post. It may be more difficult to understand if you live out of this country. We have a few areas in this country that have huge populations. If we went by popular vote, those areas would dictate the elections every time, leaving the smaller and more rural areas without a voice.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
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.


The issue is one of population density, and lack of general services in the US. The land can be cheap, but you pay for it in time. It requires a lot of upkeep, you might have a 1 hour drive to a post office, your only store could be a Walmart, there's no public transportation, you're stuck with something like a run down bar rather than craft breweries, emergency services are slow to respond (if they're available at all), commutes to work are long (in some cases you might be looking at a 3 hour drive each way, every day), utilities are spotty at best, and so on.

Some people like turning the clock back 50 years and living a simpler life. There's nothing wrong with that for those that do, but they shouldn't be given significantly more say in elections because they're choosing to live away from society.


So you are saying that only heavily populated areas have a right to be represented, if you choose to live in a rural community you should have no say????? So us rural folks need to let you smart city slickers make the decisions??? That is messed up.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
If 485 can not get it done then how would 1000 be better? That is a 1000 paychecks too...talk about expanding Government. I get it...the left in this case wants a way to account for more votes, I'm sure if CA was 80% republican then the left would not be talking much about votes.


Why do paychecks matter? Also that would not be expanding government, it would do nothing to change it's scope.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


Why do paychecks matter? Also that would not be expanding government, it would do nothing to change it's scope.


How many reps do you want, 1 per county? Should we also base Senators on population too? My point is expanding our reps only makes sense to those who want to gain an edge today that can change tomorrow. The whole popular vote thing typically only comes up when a good number of states are close and only CA is what makes the different with not a close race and the vote count is enough of a difference to change the popular vote. If we gave CA more votes it would not have mattered unless they could have come up with 74 more even if everyone in the state voted for Hillary.
edit on 31-10-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How many reps do you want, 1 per county? Should we also base Senators on population too? My point is expanding our reps only makes sense to those who want to gain an edge today that can change tomorrow. The whole popular vote thing typically only comes up when a good number of states are close and only CA is what makes the different with not a close race and the vote count is enough of a difference to change the popular vote. If we gave CA more votes it would not have mattered unless they could have come up with 74 more even if everyone in the state voted for Hillary.


Counties are a bad measurement because they have nothing to do with population counts, and county sizing is inconsistent between states.

The reason Senators matter is because of how the EC is weighted. The portion of the EC made up of the Senate makes up roughly 20% of electoral votes. If we were to expand the number of representatives from for example 435 to 1500, the value the Senate votes add becomes significantly less so you naturally have to then ask the question how much of the vote should the state count be worth? In the very first election, the population was worth 69% and the states were worth 31%, today it's 81% and 19%. However, each state was much more evenly represented.

Here's the breakdown of state representatives back in 1789 and their percentage of the legislature:
Connecticut 5 7.7%
Delaware 1 1.5%
Georgia 3 4.6%
Maryland 6 9.2%
Massachusetts 8 12.3%
New Hampshire 3 4.6%
New Jersey 4 6.2%
New York 6 9.2%
North Carolina 5 7.7%
Pennsylvania 8 12.3%
Rhode Island 1 1.5%
South Carolina 5 7.7%
Virginia 10 15.4%

There's a couple outliers there with very little representation, but for the most part it was fair.

Modern distribution is not quite so equitable.

I'm not making this argument because of who won in 2016 or to try and manipulate who wins in the future, I find that to be completely irrelevant. I'm making the argument because I find it very unfair that large states have effectively become ignored in the process.

abcnews.go.com...

Look at the numbers spent on each state. The smaller half of the states got equal or more attention than the larger ones where the majority of people live.

Again, small states should have some representation, but is it equitable when 25% of the population gets 50% of the attention?

I don't know what the right numbers are, but I do know that our current system encourages huge swaths of the population to be ignored while a handful are catered to and that is the precise failure in our system that is supposed to be avoided.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

I don't know what the right numbers are, but I do know that our current system encourages huge swaths of the population to be ignored while a handful are catered to and that is the precise failure in our system that is supposed to be avoided.


You are forgetting the independence of each state and being a state that bring a level authority to the fight, doesn't matter the population. As I said earlier, do you think in the EU that Germany should have 15 times the voting power of other EU countries because of their population?

Also, I might agree with you somewhat if every rep had the ability to case their vote and not winner take all. CA might have 150 votes with 70 wanting to be the other ticket, but winner takes all. There is also talk of breaking CA into 3 to 5 states since so many feel not represented there.

When you think about it, you need 270 votes to win and CA alone provides close to 20% to that number...that is a powerfully large chunk for just one state no matter the population.



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

originally posted by: XtrozeroThere is also talk of breaking CA into 3 to 5 states since so many feel not represented there.


The main drive behind that is that Silicon Valley and Hollywood both want more direct representation. 2 Senators focused solely on each of those industries. It's nothing but a power grab.


When you think about it, you need 270 votes to win and CA alone provides close to 20% to that number...that is a powerfully large chunk for just one state no matter the population.


I'm not a fan of winner take all, but if you move to proportional voting, you are essentially just reinstating a popular vote by another name which point you might as well just move to a popular vote.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

I'm not a fan of winner take all, but if you move to proportional voting, you are essentially just reinstating a popular vote by another name which point you might as well just move to a popular vote.


I'm not a fan of the popular vote at the federal level.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
It doesn't seem like democracy to me




Stopped reading here. I know others have set you right by now anyways.

It's not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

The electoral college is to prevent California and New York from ruling the country due simply to their sheer numbers (AKA "mob rule," which is what a true democracy is.)











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



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Adam vs. Steven... kinda


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

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



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I forgive Cornish, because he didn't go to skool in the USA.

But what's the excuse for all the whiny democrats who don't understand the electoral college?




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



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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Aazadan

I'm not a fan of winner take all, but if you move to proportional voting, you are essentially just reinstating a popular vote by another name which point you might as well just move to a popular vote.


I'm not a fan of the popular vote at the federal level.


How about each states vote is equal to it's GDP? If you want a bigger say in the country, then produce more for it?

(this is a joke btw)




top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join