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.

 

Colorado Senate Passes Bill Nixing Electoral College in Favor of Popular Vote

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

One person - one vote.

Fairer, truer to the actual population of America, and harder to manipulate corruptly.

Of course, those who want an embedded autocracy don't want it!





You wouldn't understand. Best to sit there and cry about one person, one vote. K?


It is amazing the number of people who tell me I wouldn't understand. I could try and absolve myself but, as they are idiots, they wouldn't understand. K?



And I'm nor crying about it, at all. If anything, I'm laughing at them. That's what the little 'smiley with the tongue out' signifies.



You don't fight for one person one vote by eliminating one person one vote. It works as well as fighting racism with racism.


I was fighting condescension with condescension. Not voting or racism.



That formula still doesn't work.




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: LSU2018

Voter fraud. Two words that should worry people, a lot.


Yeah but come on, what if it meant the democrat won every time? Then we could all overlook the fraud since CA and NY were able to elect the person, for this entire country, that they wanted.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

I see exactly what you're saying and Republican votes still wouldn't count. So the DNC candidate gets an automatic 55 electoral votes, which is way more than any other state. It takes 10 states in the Bible Belt just to reach that number. Throw in New York and it takes 14 states in the Bible Belt just to match the number of electoral votes CA and NY give the DNC candidate.


CA is funny today... in the last 8 years liberals have increased their base there by 1.1 million and about 1 million conservatives have been reduced as they moved out. That is over a 2 million vote swing. This last election there were ZERO republicans on the voting ballot other than Trump...lol ZERO, so it is no wonder Hillary got close to 5 million more dem votes over Trumnp's rep votes since there was no one locally to even vote for... geez


Yep, that's exactly right. Man, they're becoming a third world country in front of our eyes. People in the LA area are catching Typhus from the rats and fleas infecting the homeless. Even got to one of LA's reps.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: chr0naut

Any ducking moron who wants to abolish the electoral College doesn't understand what the USA is and shouldn't be able to vote, fuch any immigrant who has to pass the nationalization tests understand more than you ducking morons.

The US is a celebration of nation states not one ducking state. The electoral College is there to give smaller states a fair shake.

Yes they are awarded points based on population but ideally those points are also regionalized within the states to give rural areas a fair shake over centralized areas.

Damn we need civics classes again. Hell, this country would be better off teaching the constitution in school than teaching math for Christ's sake.

Jaden


Do they have to duck because of all the gunplay in the US?



Perhaps if you had attended math classes you would see that 270 actual voters, out of the 320 million citizens, are all that elect the President and the Vice President. That is what is called an insignificant fraction.

You could buy them all off for a million dollars each and you'd still make all the the money back, and then some, no worries.

Think about it, do you vote for your party's guy, or walk away a millionaire?


Take away California and Trump takes the popular vote and still wins the electoral. Had Trump won the popular vote, would you still be under the impression that the popular vote should be the deciding factor?


Yes. You are forgetting that he 'almost' won the popular vote, too.


Without the 2 bluest, as well as most populated, states in the country, he would have won. Those are the two biggest reasons presidential elections aren't based on the popular vote. Those two states would decide our election every year.

Popular Vote:

Trump - 62,984,828
Clinton - 65,853,514

Without CA & NY:

Trump - 57,323,163
Clinton - 56,119,704


Basing your entire political system upon whether Trump got votes or not in 2016, is setting a particularly low bar.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

roflol sorry don't want Cal-if/or-nia or the New-York-Corks running the whole country.

Mob rule is what ruined Vene-zoo-elia 🤣


Rule by the one is the opposite end of the spectrum to rule by the many.

Mob rule and Democracy are as related to each other as dictatorship relates to tyranny.



Popular vote is how you get your state officials. If you think anyone in America wants the same people who elected roadkill like Pelosi and Waters to decide our elections, you're insane. Los Angeles has a Typhus problem form rats and fleas, CA is slowly becoming its own third world country and nobody wants that brought here. Go to any democrat controlled city and look around at the crime, disease, homeless, and poverty. Keep that # to yourselves.


So, no one in America would want to elect the people that the majority of Americans actually voted for?

Doesn't that seem like a contradiction, or were they forced to vote for them - like with the choice between Trump or Clinton?




No. It gives the smaller states a voice in the election. Something eliminating the popular vote would take away. Do you want to remove the voice of the smaller states?


Shouldn't it be a vote of the people in the state?

Should an arbitrary division of land have more political rights than its citizenry?

Perhaps if the President and Vice President were democratically elected, the parties might have to put up better candidates?


The electoral votes are decided by the people in the states.


If that were so, what does the Colorado bill actually mean and why is it any different from what you claim is happening now?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

Yep, that's exactly right. Man, they're becoming a third world country in front of our eyes. People in the LA area are catching Typhus from the rats and fleas infecting the homeless. Even got to one of LA's reps.


Like New York..the money moves out and the lack of money moves in as a replacement.


edit on 5-2-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

One person - one vote.

Fairer, truer to the actual population of America, and harder to manipulate corruptly.

Of course, those who want an embedded autocracy don't want it!





You wouldn't understand. Best to sit there and cry about one person, one vote. K?


It is amazing the number of people who tell me I wouldn't understand. I could try and absolve myself but, as they are idiots, they wouldn't understand. K?



And I'm nor crying about it, at all. If anything, I'm laughing at them. That's what the little 'smiley with the tongue out' signifies.



You don't fight for one person one vote by eliminating one person one vote. It works as well as fighting racism with racism.


I was fighting condescension with condescension. Not voting or racism.



That formula still doesn't work.


Triggered you.




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: amazing

Those two cities already dictate the electoral vote. It would be just as bad if you remove the electoral votes. Either you don't understand this concept or you're being coy because a Republican would likely never win again. I guess it's cool as long as you can bully those small states that are a thorn in the left's side when it comes to elections. They shouldn't have a voice while we give the stage to CA and NY. Right?


No I'm still not seeing the problem. I don't think you guys understand what I'm saying. If you're in California and your a republican. You're vote for president doesn't count in the electoral college system. But in a popular vote it would count. Don't you want every vote to count?


I see exactly what you're saying and Republican votes still wouldn't count. So the DNC candidate gets an automatic 55 electoral votes, which is way more than any other state. It takes 10 states in the Bible Belt just to reach that number. Throw in New York and it takes 14 states in the Bible Belt just to match the number of electoral votes CA and NY give the DNC candidate.


And maybe I'm just confused. In the Electoral College system we have now the DNC candidate gets an automatic 55 electoral votes which is way more than any other state. so stop that and make it popular vote and then There is no automatic 55 votes...it's decided on popular vote where every vote counts. Yes No? Help me understand. Isn't that better?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing

I also see the electoral college as a way to push out thrid party candidates. We've never had that issue but if an independent or third party candidate won...Would the electoral College cast their votes for them? And in our present system, if theirs a tie, then it comes down to congress...congress isn't going to vote for an independent or third party candidates.

The electoral college is just shady and unnecessary. Let every vote count. Not just those in the big cities!


Typically the popular follows the EC, what we have today is CA that can cast millions of more votes being so one sided. The reality is if you remove that huge CA vote extreme that gave Hillary 2.8 million more votes, Trump actually won the popular vote in the other 49 states by 1.4 million.

The other interesting part is 46% of the country of voters didn't vote for either, so what is that saying...


To me that's saying that those 46% A. Didn't like Hillary or Trump. I didn't I voted third party..libertarian actually. and B. They don't trust the electoral system or feel like their votes don't count. Sounds to me like we'd get more voters with popular vote system?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
I still don't know why most of you guys don't want to abolish the Electoral college?
...


The Founding Fathers knew that there would be people like you who would not understand that "majority rule/dictatorship of the proletariat" is not how the Founding Fathers decided this nation should be ruled. BTW, just posting what one or two Founding Fathers said about it does not corroborate your point. The Founding Fathers quarreled amongst themselves because they had different ideas/beliefs. But in the end, they came to a compromise knowing full well a "dictatorship of the majority" would only oppress minorities.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Basing your entire political system upon whether Trump got votes or not in 2016, is setting a particularly low bar.


Our entire political system is outlined in the constitution.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut




Basing your entire political system upon whether Trump got votes or not in 2016, is setting a particularly low bar.


Our entire political system is outlined in the constitution.


Ah, you noticed!




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So then you know why the electoral college exists?
edit on 5 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

So then you know why the electoral college exists then?


In 1787 a focus group invented a way for distributing the seats available in the Congress Hall among representatives of each state, after so many disagreed with the initial suggestion that Congress should elect the Positions of President and Vice President.

The Constitution, while talking of electors, makes no mention of an Electoral College. It isn't something either mentioned or protected in the Constitution.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Sounds to me like we'd get more voters with popular vote system?


I guess you didn't understand all I said...lol



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You need to do a bit more reading.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
No, because if it was even remotely factual, the US would have had multiple systemic famines and disappeared long ago.

Only if the EC wasn't there to provide a mechanism for preventing the delusional city dwellers from dictating the productive people in the rest of the country.


I'm fairly sure that the people who do not grow food have no intention of stripping food producers of their profitability. To believe so is delusional.

To believe that people who don't have a clue aren't capable of acting against their best interest is delusional.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
I agree with this.

We should do away with the Electoral College. People from areas of the country, like my own New York Metro, should have a greater say in what happens to the rest of the country...

There are in fact more people living here than else where; so it's only fair that our opinions and needs are seen as way more important than everyone elses.

Don't get me wrong; I'll feel sorry for you guys not living in a city on the east or west coast no one will ever take you seriously again; but I do promise to give your needs a mild thought when I elect our president.

One person one vote ... to bad you don't have enough persons to stay relevant.




Oh no you shoudnt feel bad for us,because we would be coming to overthrow the elections if they ever did that.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
A brief summary:
Democrats- one man=one vote
Also Democrats- your vote shouldn't count if more people 2000 miles away vote differently than you do



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
As a Coloradan I can honestly say my peers are reeee'tarded.




top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join