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.

 

BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

page: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"A dictatorship of the majority"

LOL.



Yes a dictatorship of the majority. Only the most ignorant of people would laugh at something like this.


You need to avail yourself of a dictionary.

Next you'll be telling me I'm triggered or crying "REEEEEEEEEEE", or some other inane non-think.



Dictatorship of the majority is precisely the very definition of dumbocracy.

Why is ATS' quoting mechanism so broken? Why are nested quotes not rendered properly?




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
In a democracy, the MAJORITY rules, not the minority. I know, you will say we are a republic. But that is just an excuse to be corrupt and get your way and not take responsibility for your failures and update your policies to get more votes.

An excuse? Maybe for the establishment rino talking heads in DC, But for others like myself,it is precisely what made America great, and unlike any other nation in history.


I don't agree with abolishing the electoral college, but I certainly don't agree with how the Republicans are engaging in corrupt practices like gerrymandering and voter fraud and working to rig elections, either.

Well, since one has nothing to do with the other and you already said you agree with keeping one of the most unique things that sets this nation apart, I'll just address the last part...

Surely you aren't suggesting that R's are the only ones engaging in gerrymandering and voter fraud? It is funny, because the D's are guilty of both in far greater proportion.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The current system also gave you a choice between two really bad candidates for the Presidency at the last election.

Perhaps it IS time for revision?

There is nothing wrong with the framework, except that it lacks certain details that would preclude most of the hanky panky.

That said, the hanky panky can be dealt with without modifying the Constitution itself, and I certainly don't trust those in power now to monkey with it.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I am just pointing out the trend of Republicans trying to rule as if they had a majority. When you are in the minority, you still have a say, but you don't get to be in charge!

Yeah, like the sheep has a say in a 3 way vote with the other 2 being wolves.

The Senate is impossible to gerrymander under the current system, but I have always been in favor of abolishing the popular vote for Senators and go back to the original purpose, and let them be appointed by (and recalled at the whim of) each State's legislature.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
The title is incorrect. One democrat proposed this. Most democrats would vote against this.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The title is incorrect. One democrat proposed this. Most democrats would vote against this.


Just stop. I have an extra set of panic pants handy because this is on like Donkey Kong. The Electoral College is going the way of rotary phones.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I can see how this would scare right wingers to death, since they can’t win the popular vote at the national level. Personally I don’t like the winner take all system, it’s time has come and passed. That country no longer exists. a reply to: ElectricUniverse


edit on 11-1-2019 by soundguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.

Then you are incapable of rational thought.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
If that were truly the case, Clinton would be president, as she got about 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.

A misunderstanding due to the inability to engage in rational thought.

First, the gap was far less than 3 million once you understand the huge voter fraud that goes on in the largely D parts of the country like Cali and NY.

Second, the votes do count the same, just not at the level that you want it to, so you ignore and obfuscate.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
To clarify, I feel that in this day and age, our government is very poorly set up to manage a country of our size and diversity.

So, you are in favor of the federal government micromanaging the entire country?


I'm very pro abolishing the EC,

Apparently so...


but I'm also very pro dividing the US into several different self-governed sections.

You mean, like States?

Seriously, one change to the Constitution I am absolutely in favor of changing is instituting a requirement to take a non-trivial test regarding the nature of our system of government (even if you don't like or agree with it, you would have to working understanding of it. Something like the Citizenship test used for legal immigrants, but more detailed and comprehensive (and yes, I'm ok with the fact that even I would likely have to study and may have to even take it more than once). Oh, and you'd have to get at least a 90% to pass.


I actively choose to not live in CA or NY, and I wouldn't want to be represented by them. On the flip side of that though, I wouldn't want to be represented by staunch Republicans either.

Which is what living in CA or NY would get you.

Seriously, you sound like the new kind of 'immigrant' that refuses to assimilate and brings their broken notions of government with them and immediately engage in trying to make our system over into the broken one they fled.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

It's just my opinion. It doesn't mean I have never thought of other options, I just disagree with the other options. Letting every vote count the same makes the most sense to me. Majority wins. Makes the most sense to me.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: narrator
If that were truly the case, Clinton would be president, as she got about 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.

A misunderstanding due to the inability to engage in rational thought.

First, the gap was far less than 3 million once you understand the huge voter fraud that goes on in the largely D parts of the country like Cali and NY.

Second, the votes do count the same, just not at the level that you want it to, so you ignore and obfuscate.


Provide any shred of evidence regarding the "huge voter fraud" that you mention, then I'll entertain that thought.

No they don't, not in the strictest sense. Regardless of whether or not the gap was 3 million (it was, but for the sake of argument), Hillary got more votes than Trump. It doesn't make sense to me that she lost. It doesn't mean I wanted her to win (I definitely didn't), I just believe that the majority of voters wanted her to win, so it doesn't make sense that she lost.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator




No they don't, not in the strictest sense.

All votes in cali count the same
All votes in ny count the same
Cali votes and ny votes may result in different outcomes as it is not a direct vote

or do you think all elections should be direct elections?
should the people in cali elect the reps in ny?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: narrator
To clarify, I feel that in this day and age, our government is very poorly set up to manage a country of our size and diversity.

So, you are in favor of the federal government micromanaging the entire country?


I'm very pro abolishing the EC,

Apparently so...


but I'm also very pro dividing the US into several different self-governed sections.

You mean, like States?

Seriously, one change to the Constitution I am absolutely in favor of changing is instituting a requirement to take a non-trivial test regarding the nature of our system of government (even if you don't like or agree with it, you would have to working understanding of it. Something like the Citizenship test used for legal immigrants, but more detailed and comprehensive (and yes, I'm ok with the fact that even I would likely have to study and may have to even take it more than once). Oh, and you'd have to get at least a 90% to pass.


I actively choose to not live in CA or NY, and I wouldn't want to be represented by them. On the flip side of that though, I wouldn't want to be represented by staunch Republicans either.

Which is what living in CA or NY would get you.

Seriously, you sound like the new kind of 'immigrant' that refuses to assimilate and brings their broken notions of government with them and immediately engage in trying to make our system over into the broken one they fled.


-Where did I say anything about micromanaging? If anything, I want the government to be LESS involved. Meaning, right now, the government is directly involved in our voting system. I want to remove the government involvement from it. LESS micromanaging. Don't put words in my mouth.

-I stand by it, very pro-abolishing the EC.

-Sort of like states, but I don't want the federal government to have the final say over said self-governed sections. Again, LESS federal government involvement. People in DC that run the federal government have no idea how Alaska, or North Dakota, or Texas, etc. should actually be run. Let them run themselves, with NO federal overwatch. LESS government.

-People always use CA and NY as examples of why we need the EC, because then we'd always have a D government. Now you're saying if I lived in CA or NY I'd be represented by staunch Republicans? Which is it? You're contradicting your own argument here.

-American, born and raised. I'm just capable of taking a step back and looking at our country objectively, and realizing that there is room for improvement. America isn't infallible, we make mistakes and we have set some things up improperly.
Why not improve them, rather than digging in our heels and screaming "But America is the best!! Everyone else sucks!! 'Murica!!"

-We should strive to always be improving. I feel like you (and folks who think like you) feel that America is already perfect and we can never change anything, ever. I disagree with that. If we find something that works better, why not use it?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
Likewise, I don't think that small towns and farmers should have control over urban America. HOWEVER, at state and local levels, the urban areas have control over their policies and the rural areas have control of their own agenda.

This brings up a point that many forget (if they were ever aware of it in the first place).

The Federal Government was never intended to wield the power it does over private Citizens in the States, and indeed, the vast majority of Federal Legislation technically does not apply to Private Citizens in the States (it is enacted under the 'Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction' clauses at 1:8:17 or 4:3:2, rather than 1:8:1-16 delegated powers for the States.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator




No they don't, not in the strictest sense.

All votes in cali count the same
All votes in ny count the same
Cali votes and ny votes may result in different outcomes as it is not a direct vote

or do you think all elections should be direct elections?
should the people in cali elect the reps in ny?


Anytime the EC is brought up, it's in regards to Presidential elections. That's what I'm discussing here.

Clinton got millions more votes than Trump. That means the majority of American voters voted for her. Not in an over 50% sense, but in a she-got-more-votes-than-anyone-else sense. Why she isn't President will never make sense to me. I completely disagree with the EC for that reason. It undermines the true will of the majority of the people.

Before someone attacks me for this, Clinton is a snake and should probably be in prison. I didn't vote for her, and I never would. I'm not defending her, I'm defending the concept of abolishing the EC.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

A point lost on many and well made.
As the vote is for the "federal leader" and not the "state leader" the need for proportional representation was understood by the founders; similar to the set up of the house of representatives, also similar to the need for 60 senate votes to pass legislation. We have almost NO direct majority votes at a federal level. There is a very good reason for that.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator




Anytime the EC is brought up, it's in regards to Presidential elections. That's what I'm discussing here.

I understand that.
I do not think you understand why state elections are direct and the federal election is not.
All elections are not the same.
The founders knew the leader of the federal government needed to be elected by a proportional election as he was to represent ALL states, not just the most populous ones. Isnt it interesting the proportionality of the house of representatives is similar to the proportionality of the of the EC? Even the senate has to have more than just a "majority" to pass legislation. Almost NOWHERE at a federal level is proportionality left out.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
The US EC system is not that bad, it's similar to how a lot of other countries decide elections. There are effectively areas or zones which must be won, and whoever has the most zones wins.
It's a bit more complicated than just a straight count of total number of votes won, to win you have to win the most number of zones or EC areas or seats in some other systems.

So it is infact a majority wins system, it just depends on which majority you are referring to.

And America is a type of democracy, called a representative democracy.

If the USA was not a type of democracy you would not vote or have elections.


Types of democracy
en.wikipedia.org...
Liberal democracy
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 11-1-2019 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: narrator




Anytime the EC is brought up, it's in regards to Presidential elections. That's what I'm discussing here.

I understand that.
I do not think you understand why state elections are direct and the federal election is not.
All elections are not the same.
The founders knew the leader of the federal government needed to be elected by a proportional election as he was to represent ALL states, not just the most populous ones. Isnt it interesting the proportionality of the house of representatives is similar to the proportionality of the of the EC? Even the senate has to have more than just a "majority" to pass legislation. Almost NOWHERE at a federal level is proportionality left out.


I do understand the difference between state and federal elections, and I do understand the reasoning for it. However, I disagree with it. My full explanation of how I feel on the matter would take up an entire thread on it's own, but I'll sum it up like this:
The federal government has too much power. I disagree with letting the government put their hands in every single thing we do. The less government involvement, the better. That includes all forms of voting. In my opinion, that is a more pure form of voting.
However,
I understand that certain states/regions would be underrepresented if you take what I'm saying at surface level. But, in my opinion, that can be solved too. If you've read my other posts on this thread, I've said that I don't think the US government should be set up as it currently is, and I believe that the country should be split into a few different regions, that self-govern, and the federal government's ONLY involvement with these regions is protection and trade from region to region and country to country.
Example: The federal government, in Washington DC, has zero idea what is best for Alaska, where most federal politicians have never even visited, let alone understand. So why should the federal government have any say whatsoever over how Alaska is governed?
The federal government has zero idea what is best for North Dakota/South Dakota/Nebraska/Oklahoma, folks who know their crops/policies surrounding the crops and lifestyle way more than any career politician will ever be able to. Let them govern the region themselves, why should they have to listen to pantsuit, tie wearing, politicians who've never spent a day on a farm?

Some posters on here are trying to conflate what I'm saying, turning my argument into "wanting the government to micromanage us", but in fact, it's the exact opposite. It is my belief that the federal government has WAY too much overreach, and needs to be pulled back to a minimum. You and tanstaafl are up there saying the government was never intended to have this much power over the people, and that is the exact same argument that I'm making. Turn the federal government into a skeleton crew, with only the absolutely necessary power. The rest? Let us do it ourselves.
edit on 11-1-2019 by narrator because: spelling

edit on 11-1-2019 by narrator because: spelling

edit on 11-1-2019 by narrator because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join