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: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

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.


So how do you equate the popular vote as dictatorship of the majority? I say this because in the Electoral College, New York and California have become that. The majority population in that state dictates the presidential vote...the minority (Republicans) in those states, don't get any say in the presidential election at all. How is that fair?




posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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



I'm trying bro. You're going to have to spell it out for me. I'm not the brightest.

I still don't understand how a popular vote for president is worse than the electoral college system.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing


I still don't understand how a popular vote for president is worse than the electoral college system.


I'm not saying it is worst or better. We have 50 countries that make up America that we call states, each are equal of each other, and so they each get 2 senators, no more or less. That equality is part of the overall EC voting, so if we went pure popular then we are completely removing that equality part of our Union.

It is about each state gets equal say in who will be President by each having 2 votes each from the senate or 3 votes minimum. This gives smaller state more voting power than if it was a direct popular vote, hence why we ae called a republic.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing


I still don't understand how a popular vote for president is worse than the electoral college system.


I'm not saying it is worst or better. We have 50 countries that make up America that we call states, each are equal of each other, and so they each get 2 senators, no more or less. That equality is part of the overall EC voting, so if we went pure popular then we are completely removing that equality part of our Union.

It is about each state gets equal say in who will be President by each having 2 votes each from the senate or 3 votes minimum. This gives smaller state more voting power than if it was a direct popular vote, hence why we ae called a republic.


And I get that as it relates to congress. The Senate is powerful and every state gets equal representation there. The house populated via population. If more people live in Texas than Vermont, Texas get's more congressmen. The president is different. It should just be via popular vote. History shows us that we've had republican and democratic presidents who have won the popular vote. Getting rid of the electoral college doesn't change that. We'll still have republican presidents in the future.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

That would mean rural States and districts being cast out. Just because we're not densely populated, doesn't mean we don't work hard and contribute to the nation's well being. And thus, we should have a fair say. I don't know why this is so hard to understand...

ETA: America is a republic, not a demcracy.
edit on 6-2-2019 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

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

I get that you think it favors democrats. But the Electoral college favors democrats by giving California and New York too much power. Also remember that the popular vote almost always follows the electoral vote anyway, except in like three instances. Also remember that, only the president is elected using the Electoral college. We still have congress that is elected with the popular vote.


No, it doesn't, and if you total the population of just NY, Chicago, and California, they automatically win, as their voting population is larger than the rest of the country.

You'd be removing the sovereign right of a all states to have a voice in the election process. It's not about population, it's about STATES. The electoral college recognizes STATES. Popular vote recognizes nothing but popularity and population.

You don't understand WHY the electoral college exists, that's why you don't mind it going. If you understood why they are required, what they actually do, you wouldn't feel the way you do. This is elementary civics, and this is a glaring failing of the USA's schooling curriculum.

The electoral college weights heavy population states, but still balances to a total. This means the big 3 can win, and the rest of the country doesn't automatically suffer from it, despite the big three having an influence. Red can win now. Red can't win ever on a popular vote system because the population of 3 major blue states is just too large. California shouldn't control the voice of Kentucky or Texas. That's what the electoral college does.
edit on 6-2-2019 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Yes lets abolish the electoral collage and replace it with every county in America getting one vote that is decided with a popular vote, that would be a true representative democracy that is not ruled by the mob.
This way blue states get to send some red votes and red sates get to send some blue votes that seems fair.

But......

edit on 6-2-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

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?


If you make the allocation of EC votes proportional to percentages of the state vote (as it should be, IMO). It negates the disenfranchisement of any party more-so than direct democracy you advocate for.
The majority of CA is rural to suburban. Yet the numbers in the big cities (Sacramento to Los Angeles [by population, not area]), dominate the narrative.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
. The president is different. It should just be via popular vote.


Everything is popular vote except for the President...and then you say the president is different, and if we did it by popular vote then the position would not be different...lol



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

Well said!



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

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

I get that you think it favors democrats. But the Electoral college favors democrats by giving California and New York too much power. Also remember that the popular vote almost always follows the electoral vote anyway, except in like three instances. Also remember that, only the president is elected using the Electoral college. We still have congress that is elected with the popular vote.


No, it doesn't, and if you total the population of just NY, Chicago, and California, they automatically win, as their voting population is larger than the rest of the country.

You'd be removing the sovereign right of a all states to have a voice in the election process. It's not about population, it's about STATES. The electoral college recognizes STATES. Popular vote recognizes nothing but popularity and population.

You don't understand WHY the electoral college exists, that's why you don't mind it going. If you understood why they are required, what they actually do, you wouldn't feel the way you do. This is elementary civics, and this is a glaring failing of the USA's schooling curriculum.

The electoral college weights heavy population states, but still balances to a total. This means the big 3 can win, and the rest of the country doesn't automatically suffer from it, despite the big three having an influence. Red can win now. Red can't win ever on a popular vote system because the population of 3 major blue states is just too large. California shouldn't control the voice of Kentucky or Texas. That's what the electoral college does.


But like I said, the popular vote has almost always been the same result as the electoral college, except in 3 or 4 instances. Meaning that Red can and has won as many times as Blue. Also consider my argument that there are millions of republican voters in New York, California and Oregon that don't get a vote for president in our current system. IN a popular voting system they would. States still have rights in a popular voting system.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing
. The president is different. It should just be via popular vote.


Everything is popular vote except for the President...and then you say the president is different, and if we did it by popular vote then the position would not be different...lol


These arguments get confusing. But my main point is that the presidential election should be based on popular vote, just like for congress and senate.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing


These arguments get confusing. But my main point is that the presidential election should be based on popular vote, just like for congress and senate.


Well we would need to agree to disagree...not sure how to express it any more. House and Senate are state level elections, President is federal level and if you did it your way you will disenfranchise a good number of states in their voting power to elect the federal level President. If you do not care that states would lose their equal rights in voting power for the federal position, then so be it, that is your opinion, but I feel states should keep their equality.
edit on 7-2-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This way blue states get to send some red votes and red sates get to send some blue votes that seems fair.

But......


As much as I would love to agree with you being a conservative too with such a pretty red picture, but it is just a meme that basically means nothing unless you feel a county with 3 people is one vote and another with 1 million people is also 1 vote...lol




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Senate is popular vote by state, representatives are by district. Do you get to vote for who is senator in other states or who the representatives are for other districts?

President is the same way. You vote who you want to be president of your state, as do the members of each and every other state.

It's not one national election for president, it's 50 state level elections for president.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

There is now no need for anyone in Colorado to vote for President. The other 49 states will make the decision for you.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

A visit to a red county in blue state would be worth it, it would stop the liberal mobs in New York and LA from ruling the whole country.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
This is a very stupid idea

Most people are not moral enough to be making choices for others, not smart enough to be making decisions for themselves, and nowhere near well informed enough to be making choices for the entire country

dirty democracy and its mob rule mentality is not the way forward.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


county with 3 people is one vote and another with 1 million people is also 1 vote


I absolutely feel this way


If this were a democracy, that would make sense. But it isn't, and the objective is to ensure that our territories (states) have an equal voice in the operation of this country. Otherwise, why should small states even remain in the union? They'd be better off splitting off

Of course I firmly believe we'd be better off splitting up anyhow. Not like any of us really have a say in the matter, that result is inevitable. The writing is on the walls....

I believe any person voting should have to demonstrate a working->advanced level knowledge about the topic they're voting on. Prevents straight ticket votes and those who vote for ideologically moronic reasons vs. having something of practical value to add. Not everyone's voice is worth adding to the discussion, especially those who are grossly uninformed who then believe they should be able to infect the lives of others with there lack of information


edit on 2/8/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Could you imagine the outrage if the EC became 1 County is 1 Vote?

2,649 to 503 kinda says it all.




top topics



 
35
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join