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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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


Because it isn't, it's a representative republic.


Errhrm, we have a document guaranteeing what constitutes the rights of the individual and defines the roles, and limitations, of publicly elected representatives. Thus, the US is a Constitutional Rebublic.

If there were no electoral college, most states might as well leave the union and form one where they have proper representation. The idea of getting rid of the electoral college is a moronic and near sighted argument made by feeble minded people with no grasp of what makes for proper governance.
edit on 1-11-2018 by GenerationGap because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
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?

Lol thanks

Interesting thread though I've learned lots.




edit on 1-11-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.


1000 YEP 1000 more paychecks more pensions more chances for corruption etc.etc. no the founding fathers built a systems with flaws but it's built for expansion and states rights.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Well said!!

I've always said we're the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America.

BIG difference.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

We "justify" that because, as it was explained to you before, the people do not elect the president the States do via Electors. The people are voting for whom their state will vote for as President.

So the population is almost irrelevant to this, it only comes into play in deciding how many electors they get. And it's not proportional to population. It's about the State being represented.

Cali gets 55, Wyoming gets 3.

If Cali gets 55 at 500,000 people each, and Wyoming gets 3 at 180,000 people each elector. Imagine the power Cali would have over every other state if they got the same dispersion of electors. They'd have 153 electors,and combine that with New York's electors of 111 using the same 180,000 people metric, and you'd have the country ruled by two States.

That's completely unacceptable. Every State gets a say, and the EC protects that

The Electoral College is about the State, not the People, and you keep brining up population ratios that are totally irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: GenerationGap
Thus, the US is a Constitutional Rebublic.


If you want to play the split-the-hairs-semantics game it's technically a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic.

My comment was about how people feel they directly elect the President which they do not, it is a representative process.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 06:58 AM
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.


Second reply to this because I just thought of this last night. If you aren't a fan of the popular vote, then why do we let the popular vote decide of the EC's votes? Shouldn't the portion of EV's that come from population be decided by popular vote, while the states each cast their two votes in whatever manner they see fit?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6
1000 YEP 1000 more paychecks more pensions more chances for corruption etc.etc. no the founding fathers built a systems with flaws but it's built for expansion and states rights.


If more is bad, then less is good right? Drop from 435 to 50 and that's less paychecks, less pensions, and fewer chances for corruption?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: putnam6
1000 YEP 1000 more paychecks more pensions more chances for corruption etc.etc. no the founding fathers built a systems with flaws but it's built for expansion and states rights.


If more is bad, then less is good right? Drop from 435 to 50 and that's less paychecks, less pensions, and fewer chances for corruption?


No don't be ridiculous just cause you dont agree LOL its a good balance no reason to mess around with it now especially with the country kind of split, I prefer less governmental interference especially federal governmental interference. In case you havent noticed both sides are a little bit lets just say sub standard not exact the ones you'd like messing with an issue like this. Some times things have a way of working themselves out, not to mention they have to start screwing around with the constitution, just because one side is butt hurt from losing an election. System was fine when it elected Lincoln,Kennedy,Clinton,Obama and its fine now. Besides your government has more effect on your lives at the state and local levels as it should be. I live in a heavy Democratic area, I can deal with it, don't feel oppressed or uncomfortable in anyway shape or form. LOL thought we had a blue wave coming any way.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

We "justify" that because, as it was explained to you before, the people do not elect the president the States do via Electors. The people are voting for whom their state will vote for as President.

So the population is almost irrelevant to this, it only comes into play in deciding how many electors they get. And it's not proportional to population. It's about the State being represented.

Cali gets 55, Wyoming gets 3.

If Cali gets 55 at 500,000 people each, and Wyoming gets 3 at 180,000 people each elector. Imagine the power Cali would have over every other state if they got the same dispersion of electors. They'd have 153 electors,and combine that with New York's electors of 111 using the same 180,000 people metric, and you'd have the country ruled by two States.

That's completely unacceptable. Every State gets a say, and the EC protects that

The Electoral College is about the State, not the People, and you keep brining up population ratios that are totally irrelevant.



Exactly its all about states rights, it always has been. They never wanted an empirical federal government where one person or party could rule with an iron fist. Good lord we have enough trouble deciding how many public restrooms to have and people want to mess around with something thats stood in good stead for over 200 years. want to change some thing do it on the state level where it effects you directly, much like the new marijuana laws it can be done, without involving the feds.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


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.


One thing people do not think about and a big reason why I am not in favor of the popular vote for the federal Government is that America is HUGE and has HUGE differences around the country. We don't see this because everyone speaks the same language, you see the same stores/restaurants/malls etc etc, but the distance between Portland OR and Chicago is greater than the distance between London and Moscow and what people do not realize is the two places are about as different as Brits are to Russians too.

Make no mistake, LA, NY City, Chicago, Detroit etc are like in other countrys to much of America just as Portland is a different country to them. Take LA, its has issues that most other places do not have, its goals are vastly different than most other places around America, its attitude on issues are very focused to their needs, not others. Hell, it has an illegal population larger than the population in a about 40 states.

For CA to drive the direction of the Federal Government, and that is basically what many are talking about, this would be like Russia telling the Brits what is best for them because they have a bigger population, and so at some point population can not be the main factor in selecting the Federal Government otherwise we might as well do away with the whole states rights part too.




edit on 1-11-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


Second reply to this because I just thought of this last night. If you aren't a fan of the popular vote, then why do we let the popular vote decide of the EC's votes? Shouldn't the portion of EV's that come from population be decided by popular vote, while the states each cast their two votes in whatever manner they see fit?



States decide how they cast their EC, CA can have 100% vote for Hillary and the State can still give Trump all 55. All states are equal as they each get 2 senators. To suggest that CA's 53 times more votes over many other states, that IS based on population, is not fair seems rather ungenuine.


The point you are getting at is to make the 2 Senator votes inconsequential to the voting process. Those votes matter today and represent the equality of each state. To suggest an increase in votes based on population would make those votes moot and so lessen the equality that states today have.

edit on 1-11-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   
2400 years ago... Plato thought political regimes followed a predictable evolutionary course, from oligarchy to democracy to tyranny. ... They created a firewall against the tyranny of the majority, which is why we have a republic instead of a direct democracy.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




CA can have 100% vote for Hillary and the State can still give Trump all 55.

Not legally.


Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. No elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have these laws been fully vetted by the courts. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:

www.ncsl.org...



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xtrozero




CA can have 100% vote for Hillary and the State can still give Trump all 55.

Not legally.


Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. No elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have these laws been fully vetted by the courts. The states with laws that attempt to bind the votes of presidential electors are below:

www.ncsl.org...


Thanks for the info...lets say theoretically then it is possible



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Because it makes more sense than a few clusters of over populated cities deciding what is best for an entire country they know nothing about....

Take for example the growing number of people that have no clue where their food comes from, or believes that chocolate milk is made from brown cows.

Just sayin'



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Not really.

or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
So really in effect, the popular vote of every state decides the vote of the Electoral College by the state.
Just some states are allocated less EC votes per capita population wise.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Phage
So really in effect, the popular vote of every state decides the vote of the Electoral College by the state.
Just some states are allocated less EC votes per capita population wise.


Yes. It's also highly competitive between states to get more influence in primary elections since the earlier you vote in the primary, the more say you have in who the final candidates will be. We don't have a single primary day, instead usually Iowa goes first in the process, followed by a couple more over the next couple weeks, and then a big election with about half the states, and then a few more trailing states.



posted on Nov, 8 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Phage
So really in effect, the popular vote of every state decides the vote of the Electoral College by the state.
Just some states are allocated less EC votes per capita population wise.


Yes. It's also highly competitive between states to get more influence in primary elections since the earlier you vote in the primary, the more say you have in who the final candidates will be. We don't have a single primary day, instead usually Iowa goes first in the process, followed by a couple more over the next couple weeks, and then a big election with about half the states, and then a few more trailing states.


The Primaries have nothing to do with the Electoral College or our government. Those are run by the parties themselves and have nothing to do with the government. It's a completely different topic.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join