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: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

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.


Again, every presidential election has gone the popular vote except for 3 or 4 and two of those wouldn't have surprised anyone anyway...Clinton and Al Gore. Clinton and Al wouldn't have gotten second terms though because they are terrible leaders.




posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
So this is what our government does? ... waists everyone's time and money.

It be one thing to introduce pie in the sky bills when you have control of all three branches of government; but to do it when you barely have control over 1/2 of one of the three branches is just childish.

Is this what we can expect from Democrats for the next two years?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

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.


Stop being condescending. You have no idea who I am, "junior" could be a wildly inappropriate title for you to give me.

Reality check for you: I never said they would, and I never said I believe they would. I've said all along that it's just my opinion that it would be a good thing. I never once insinuated that I thought it would actually happen.
Since we're being condescending now: Reading comprehension...it's important.

Don't we want an even playing field? Allowing equality sounds like a great thing to me.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Even if it passed both houses, and the President signed it...It has to be ratified by the states. Guess what will not happen?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   

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.


I know, that's what I've been saying all along. Our current system isn't as good as it could be, so let's reinvent it in a better form. America 2.0, or some other clever tagline.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

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.


That's why the popular vote is so important. It lets all the rural votes count. There are plenty of republicans in California....Somewhere between 5-6 million. Numbers suggest that only half of them voted. Mainly because they know they're in a liberal state and their votes won't count. That's why we have to do away with the electoral college.

Remember also, that despite the liberal states, we keep electing Republican presidents. There have been 19 republican presidents since Lincoln.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

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.


Sorry, i'm not known for being the sharpest person in the room. I was trying to say that the popular vote is the way to rid ourselves or the corrupt electoral college and let every vote count so that even the small farmer in California who's republican has a say in the presidental election, unlike with todays system.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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.


So there you go. Let's get rid of the Electoral college then.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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?


Abolishing the EC has nothing to do with disallowing equality. I'd argue the exact opposite. Equality isn't the same as equity.

One man One vote. That's true equality. If the opinion of your side isn't as popular as the other side, you lose. If my side's opinion isn't popular, I lose. That sounds pretty fair to me, no intervention from corrupt organizations needed.
However, that's a very small part of my overall stance on this. Abolish the EC, because the US needs to be split up and the EC would no longer be relevant, because each region would govern themselves. I've expanded on this in several posts on this thread, I'm not going to re-type it all.

ETA: you do know this isn't the Mud Pit, right? Stop with the ridiculous name calling. It adds no power to your argument and makes you sound petty.
edit on 4-1-2019 by narrator because: eta



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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.


The people who benefit from the status quo would prefer dropping nuclear bombs on you than give up any shred of their existing power!


edit on 4-1-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

It may not be perfect, but it works and it works really well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Tinkering with the Constitution or splitting the country up is a very, very bad idea.

All that would be is a knee jerk reaction to partisan bickering which has been with us all along. Breaking us apart would go down in history as the worst political blunder in history IMO. Breaking us apart is something our enemies would no doubt be thrilled to see. Russia and China would be holding celebrations and cheering in the streets as they nudged us off the world table.

"United we stand, divided we fall" is not just a cute old saying, it's a fact.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   

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.


I disagree only because in most elections the person that wins the presidential electoral vote also wins the popular vote. There have only been 2 recent times that wasn't true, Trump over Hillary and Bush over Al Gore. With Gore that all came down to Florida so...not sure what to think there.

Also, there are 5-6 million registered repulican voters in California. Less then half of them voted this past election. Why? Because they know they live in california and they're votes don't count. In a popular voting system, they're votes would finally count. Am I way off here? Let me know, seriously.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Point.

One, I'm a smart ass, get over it.

Two, you are negating the rights of individuals in lessly populated states, thus disenfranchising the voters there.

You are for the tyranny of the majority.

Own it.


edit on 4-1-2019 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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".


I have in 3 different posts in the last couple of pages. Feel free to go back and read them because I have no interest in re-typing it all again.

And yeah I get where you are coming from. You want to completely destroy the structure of the US govt and break the country up into multiple nation states.



posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   

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.


Why ask something of me that you know I cannot do?

But a quick fact check confirms that Syria was the 'Democratic Republic of Syria' in the 1940's but has fallen into authoritarian rule since the coup by Hafez al-Assad's forces in 1970. The current President is his son Bashur al-Assad who has maintained leadership despite the popular opposition that occurred during the "Arab Spring" (July 2000-February 2001).

Syria is now 'officially' referred to as 'The Arab Republic of Syria' (they have dropped the "Democratic" part of the title), although the fact that the Assad's appear to be its lifelong leaders, indicates that it is, in fact, now a hereditary dictatorship.

Thank you for making my case.

edit on 4/1/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)







 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join