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: 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.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Phage
These are all states that vote Democrat, historically... it will be hilarious the next time a Republican wins the popular vote and those states are forced to honor their pact and also vote for the Republican... Oh, wait... that will be when they abandon the pact and say "it was nonbinding and possibly not even legal" while their party goes DEAD quiet on this abolishment of the Electoral College issue.
originally posted by: Phage
I understand and agree with the concept of electoral voting but the Constitution is silent on the criteria by which electors vote. That has fallen to each state to decide. Or not.
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...
originally posted by: JinMI
Democracy encourages mob rule (corruption) and is the main reason why we have a representative republic.
originally posted by: Phage
The Constitution just states how electoral votes are cast and who is excluded from being an elector. Nothing in the Constitution which says anything about how electors should vote.
originally posted by: Phage
I understand and agree with the concept of electoral voting but the Constitution is silent on the criteria by which electors vote. That has fallen to each state to decide. Or not.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: circuitsports
Basically people that don't grow any of the food and only consume it want to control the people who grow the food and strip them of any profit or ability to continue doing so until everyone dies.
And you believe that?
originally posted by: network dude
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.
it's kind of in the constitution, so there is that.
www.archives.gov...
originally posted by: a325nt
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.
It favors states rights. If I wanted to live in a commie # hole I'd move to California- but i don't, so I won't.
I also don't want California voters dictating the rules in my state- it's bad enough how much influence they have in congress.
originally posted by: generik
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.
you do of course realize that most if not all free countries have something similar to the electoral collage involved in choosing the leaders of their countries? in fact many countries don't even "vote" for their leader at all, so you might not even realize that there is something exactly like the electoral college in play. instead of electing the leader of the country separate, the leader of the party that wins the most seats (elected positions), in their version of congress becomes the country's leader. it might for example be called "Parliament", with the party who wins the most "seats", becoming "Prime Minister" as in countries like Canada. this just like the electoral college in the US ensures that everyone in the country is fairly represented in choosing the leader of the country, and insures that it is not only a few small areas due to population density get to choose the leader of the government. the leader of the government being the representative of their country to the world, and acts as head of the government.
it's actually rather ironic that a state like Colorado would be the one's pushing to make their own voters completely irrelevant in Presidential elections. would they like places like California and New York voting for their congressmen and senators as well for them? because that is in effect what they are doing with this insanity is having the areas with the most and largest cities choosing who will be President and thus representing them to the world and who will be head of their government. congratulations for making yourselves irrelevant in politics Colorado.
originally posted by: chr0naut
I'm just speaking what I believe is the truth. I believe in flat taxation based upon productivity, too. For similar reasons, it is a simpler system and more resistant to corruption.
originally posted by: amazing
I disagree. The electoral college favors cities rights. One glaring example is Oregon. Most of the state is conservative except for the two big cities of portland and Salem. Those tend to swing very liberal. Getting rid of the Electoral college would finally give the majority of that state an actual vote instead of just those two cities.
According to the state's election agency, as of December 2017, there were 2,652,935 registered voters in Oregon, with their political party affiliations (highest to lowest) as follows: 36.1% Democratic Party. 30.5% "Non-affiliated" with any party. 26.3% Republican Party
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: amazing
I disagree. The electoral college favors cities rights. One glaring example is Oregon. Most of the state is conservative except for the two big cities of portland and Salem. Those tend to swing very liberal. Getting rid of the Electoral college would finally give the majority of that state an actual vote instead of just those two cities.
Are you talking land size or population? When you say most of the state is conservative what does that mean when we look at the voting population.
According to the state's election agency, as of December 2017, there were 2,652,935 registered voters in Oregon, with their political party affiliations (highest to lowest) as follows: 36.1% Democratic Party. 30.5% "Non-affiliated" with any party. 26.3% Republican Party
How do these numbers make most of the state conservative... BTW at the state level it is the popular vote for all elections, so I'm not sure your point.
originally posted by: amazing
The point is, that you know Oregon is going to be a Democratic state before the election even starts. It's a given. The last 5 presidental elections. That means that if you're a republican in Oregon, why would you even vote for president? You know your vote won't count. If we got rid of the electoral college, those republican votes would finally count.
I used to live in Oregon so every little city/town place you went was conservative. Salem and Portland were the anomalies.