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.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: narrator
I'm for splitting the US up into self-governed regions based on the needs of the region.
That's all well and good but it doesn't change the fact that we aren't split up that way, so making changes geared towards a situation that lies entirely within fantasyland isn't going to get very far.
You're right, Kansas shouldn't have to be governed at a federal level the same way Florida is. But they are. Wyomingians don't want to be governed the way New York or California is. Getting rid of the EC will do nothing but ensure that the rest of the country is run by whoever those two states like best.
It's a step in the right direction, in my opinion. One man One vote.
I'll pass on the "tyranny of the majority," thanks. Even if that risks upsetting people who live in two cities.
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing
So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency
But what's the difference now? NY and Cali get a huge electoral vote imbalance and all republican votes are nulled. Trust me it's better with popular vote.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: IAMTAT
"Orange Man Bad!"...
"Orange Man Win Electoral College!"...
"Electoral College Bad!"
No one had a problem with the Electoral College until Hillary, The Evil Death Queen of Hell and Vomit, lost.
That's just not true. I've held the same review in regards to the EC for almost two decades now. Also, for what it's worth, I most definitely didn't want Hillary to win.
So why do you want the senate gone as well?
Because our government is horribly inefficient, and there has to be a better way to govern our gigantic, diverse country than a system that came into being when there were only about 2.5 million people in the entire country.
Okay junior, reality check.
What makes you think that the government will EVER vote for restricting the power and control they yield?
Really.
They may "try" to eliminate the Electoral College but that's ONLY because it evens the playing field and allows equality.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: narrator
You know we already have the system you are describing. We have a centralized, elected federal government, but each State has a great deal of control over local matters. You're trying to reinvent what we already have.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing
So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency
But what's the difference now? NY and Cali get a huge electoral vote imbalance and all republican votes are nulled. Trust me it's better with popular vote.
In those states, maybe.
But in national elections, they don't quite have that power yet. If they did, they wouldn't be so upset about the EC system. See? This past election, they discovered that they still have to somewhat pander to the "cretins" out in flyover precisely because they don't have enough power to completely ignore us.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: amazing
Okay.
So are you like...confused what is meant by "tyranny of the majority?" It seems like you are, if you think that any election that isn't tied counts as "tyranny of the majority."
Then again, I'm not really sure what point you're even trying to make so I'm having to fill in the blanks on my own.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing
In terms of numbers, how many truly liberal states are there as compared to conservative ones or purple ones?
I also think that when you look at numbers both people who openly call themselves liberal/prog and those who openly call themselves conservative are outweighed by the numbers who identify as neither.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: narrator
Don't we want an even playing field? Allowing equality sounds like a great thing to me.
Then why are you trying to disallow equality, Kitten?
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: amazing
So California and NY get elections. Everyone else gets to cheer them on without agency
Yep ... right up until those two states get it wrong, and then it would be unfair and we'd need a new electoral system to make sure "the people" have their voice again.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: amazing
Wasn't taking a shot at the intellect behind the point, amigo, just the delivery of the point. Thank you for clarifying it for me.
But that's exactly what my point is: all the small farmers in California who are republicans, all the small farmers in Montana who are republicans, all the small farmers in Nebraska who are republicans, would have no more say than they already have because their votes are stacked up against the democratic voters in their own state and New York. Presidential elections wouldn't be elections any more. It would be New York and California figuring out who they want to put in office, and that's it.
originally posted by: narrator
originally posted by: Carcharadon
originally posted by: narrator
I'm 100% for abolishing the EC. Power to the people and all that good stuff. If we're all for a smaller government, shouldn't we want the government to not be involved in how the country votes? One man one vote, equal representation, etc. etc.
Let every vote count the same. Whichever side gets the majority of the votes, wins. Any other way makes zero sense to me.
To head off the inevitable, ridiculous reply at the pass: Yes, a majority used to be in favor of slavery. But voting for a politician can not be compared to voting to violate human rights. Don't sully your argument by comparing the two.
Same with saying, "go talk to (insert middle eastern country) and see how they like majority voting". The US isn't Syria, Afghanistan, etc. See my previous point, voting for politicians is not the same as voting to violate human rights.
Abolishing the EC will actually do the opposite of what you think. It will disenfranchise millions.
Its absolute idiocy to want to do a first past the post system. Pure idiocy.
Puts no power in the hands of the people. It takes power out of the hands of the people. If you cant understand that it's because either you dont want to or you want a couple populous states to run the country.
Not having the EC is stupid.
Or...you're just worried that the political party that you back would lose some of their power?
Disenfranchising millions is not the same as the people losing power over the government.
I fail to understand how giving complete voting power to the people would actually take that power away from the people. Care to explain that for me?
Also, read my replies to others in regards to this. My full position on the matter is way more complicated than "abolish the EC".
originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
"A dictatorship of the majority"
LOL.
You laugh, but certain minority groups would disagree with you.
In some countries, you get tossed off of rooftops (or stoned) for being in a minority. The majority thinks that's fine though. The problem with the idea of majority rule is that people who think it's awesome can't ever conceive of what it might be like to not be in that majority and forever compelled to go along against their needs and inclinations.
Are any of those countries where minorities are criminally oppressed, actually democracies? Because I don't think the true majority is ever cool with such things.
Go to Syria and ask them.