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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
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?




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   

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?



edit on 5/2/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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.




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The beauty of doing away with the Electoral College is that is how you get to One Party rule like they have in California. Elections will no longer be anything resembling a competition of ideas, they'll be coronation ceremonies. So....the only elections that will matter will be the so-called "Primaries" of the Democrat party. The general elections will just confirm the choice made in the Primary. And of course, it will essentially mean that the National Leadership, President on down, will be selected by the Democrats in the major metropolitan areas.

And we've seen how that works..............that's how we got Obamacare. That's how the poor schleps in Wyoming get a 55mph speed limit on the Interstates. And that's the best demonstration I can think of as to why NO, we are NOT all in this together. Different regions in the country have different needs, different living conditions, different environments..................different people. E Pluribus Unum has become E Pluribus Junk!

Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The Op is pointing out that another state is joining the interstate compact.

This is not new news, though it is not a good idea either, but for other reasons, beyond what the Op is stating. This idea is not new, it has been around for years, and ultimately it is a response to the fact that several times in the past the candidate with the most popular votes did not win, but it was the other guy. And it was wrong, but it was a fact of life.

Now while some may say that it is unconstitutional, the reality is that it is very much constitutional. The Constitution is very vague on how the electors are to be chosen. At one time it was not the people, but the governor or the state legislators that chose the electors, who could ignore the will of the people. And those electors for a long time were not bound to vote for the candidate, but who they wanted.

But slowly the states started to change the way the electors were chosen and who they voted for. More and more states passed laws that forbid an elector to vote against the will of the people, and many of them did the winner take all system. And that is what is causing the problems to this time frame.

This new system, the compact, while it is legal, is a bad idea. The problem is that once it goes into effect, then it would mean that political candidates would no longer have to spend a lot of time in all 50 states, but rather they could spend small amounts of time and then visit those states in the compact and win the election. It also starts to disenfranchise states from the candidates, due to the size of the populations in some states, and areas. Think about it, under this system, why would a candidate be concerned with say the problems of a rural area, when a city that has 10 times the population would gain them the electors?

And the current system is not any good, as heavily party dominated states, often the minority party does not get a voice or see their choice when the election is done, for no matter who they voted for, the state does majority political party choice. So that means in say Texas, a state that is heavily republican, save for the larger cities are primary republican, however, no democrat electors are sent, and they vote for the republican candidate. The same goes for California, where the democrats get all of the elector votes.

The only real solution, is to make it where the votes are proportional, and the candidates can no longer focus on any one state, along with making every vote count, where one vote could change the outcome of an election.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

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!



One person, one vote is called mob rule.

Our founders were specifically against it because they understood history.

James Madison... "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

John Adams... "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

The quotes go on and on...

We could go back a little further...

Plato... "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."

So you see, Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

A Democracy, by definition, does not protect the minority.

Something I thought lefties were all about...




Oh, could they have been wrong?

Countries of the world without some sort of democracy.

Only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Brunei, and the Vatican officially admit to be undemocratic. Massive fail for the world if those founding fathers and ancients were correct.
NO! They were not wrong. We have some democratic elements in our government. But we are still
A Republic.
Saudi Arabia etc are ruled by Sharia Law which is incompatible with the US Constitution, which is why we don’t need Islamic fundies running things with their hand on the Q’uran.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Think about it, do you vote for your party's guy, or walk away a millionaire?


Well, considering one party wants to take 90% of those millions away in taxes, that would entirely depend on which party was "your party," wouldn't it? Not Conservative is going to take the money and run in exchange for implementing a socialist Dem into the White House because it would literally be self rape.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

There is not a single version of democracy.
The version you are advocating for is mob rule - the "pitchforks" model that the founders of the USA were specifically trying to avoid. It doesn't work - anywhere - and never has.

You've embraced this idiocy because you didn't get the result you wanted in 2016 and are still upset about it. You ae no longer capable of rational thought because you have let bitterness consume you.


No, there are hundreds of implementations of democratic rule, all around the world.

Modern elections happen in polling booths with registered voters, scrutineers and rules to ensure that there is no cheating.

No mobs, no pitchforks.

Just like happens now, except that in the US, the citizen vote is a sham because only 270 actual person votes, by Electoral College voters, elect the President and the Vice President. The public electoral votes are discarded because the EC votes take precedence.

And I am not American. I never voted in any US election and I actually thought that neither Clinton or Trump were particularly worth voting for, anyway.

The electoral college is an anachronism. It is only appropriate for dis-united states to try and achieve parity with each other. It has more to do with the number of seats that can be accommodated into some old architecture.

In a modern and supposedly 'united' country, it is stupid to discard the votes of its citizens.

edit on 5/2/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

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?

It is essentially factual.


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

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.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.


One thing that I find with people that come from many EU countries to include others like New Zealand is they want to suggest what works for them is what America should do, and you just do not realize that your country is about the size and population of one of our small states. Think of a situation with 50 New Zealands all with a wide range of populations and beliefs. How would you like your Trans-Tasman to fall under one Government that the popular vote picks all. Would your 5 million population ever have a say in anything as it goes up each election against Australia's 25 million?


New Zealand is not an EU member. New Zealand also covers a land area greater than Great Britain so, while small, it doesn't mean insignificant.

There is also this thing called an 'economy of scale' which means that larger numbers of people provide bargaining power and productivity superiority over smaller numbered groups. This means that if it works here, in tiny New Zealand, it will work even better in the US (unless you monumentally screw up the formula).

And I am an Australian citizen. If our two nations were to combine in federation, we are similar enough to make a true democratic vote equitable and fair for both regions. Political representation, taxation and budgetary spend proportional to population would remain fair (in my opinion).

I actually consider Australia's political system to be the best implementation of the Westminster system, which is the fairest form of government on the planet (better than the NZ government and more scale-able to larger, and more diverse, populations).



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: chr0naut

The beauty of doing away with the Electoral College is that is how you get to One Party rule like they have in California. Elections will no longer be anything resembling a competition of ideas, they'll be coronation ceremonies. So....the only elections that will matter will be the so-called "Primaries" of the Democrat party. The general elections will just confirm the choice made in the Primary. And of course, it will essentially mean that the National Leadership, President on down, will be selected by the Democrats in the major metropolitan areas.

And we've seen how that works..............that's how we got Obamacare. That's how the poor schleps in Wyoming get a 55mph speed limit on the Interstates. And that's the best demonstration I can think of as to why NO, we are NOT all in this together. Different regions in the country have different needs, different living conditions, different environments..................different people. E Pluribus Unum has become E Pluribus Junk!

Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.


Trump and Clinton were fairly close in popular vote.

The Republican Party could still had won if there were no Electoral College. All they'd have to do is field a better candidate with superior policies.

As it was, both candidates were crap. How a modern country could be so manipulated to only have choice between the flavor of one dog turd over another, reveals a bigger systemic failing of the Republic, than the electoral college.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Lumenari

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!



One person, one vote is called mob rule.

Our founders were specifically against it because they understood history.

James Madison... "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

John Adams... "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

The quotes go on and on...

We could go back a little further...

Plato... "Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."

So you see, Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

A Democracy, by definition, does not protect the minority.

Something I thought lefties were all about...




Oh, could they have been wrong?

Countries of the world without some sort of democracy.

Only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Brunei, and the Vatican officially admit to be undemocratic. Massive fail for the world if those founding fathers and ancients were correct.
NO! They were not wrong. We have some democratic elements in our government. But we are still
A Republic.
Saudi Arabia etc are ruled by Sharia Law which is incompatible with the US Constitution, which is why we don’t need Islamic fundies running things with their hand on the Q’uran.


My point was that only those five countries do NOT have democracy.

The electoral college relates more to the seating arrangements of an old building than to fair government, republic or otherwise.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



How a modern country could be so manipulated to only have choice between the flavor of one dog turd over another, reveals a bigger systemic failing of the Republic, than the electoral college.


I'll second that and the 2020 election may well feature the worst of the worst from every direction!



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: chr0naut
Think about it, do you vote for your party's guy, or walk away a millionaire?


Well, considering one party wants to take 90% of those millions away in taxes, that would entirely depend on which party was "your party," wouldn't it? Not Conservative is going to take the money and run in exchange for implementing a socialist Dem into the White House because it would literally be self rape.


Payment of such inducements is illegal and so it would be unlikely to be officially recorded or taxed. You'd still come out better off.

Most probably, it would end up with both parties trying to out-buy the other in a festival of American corruption! Yee Ha!

PS, if you look at the actual number of invalidated EC votes at the 2016 election (despite the penalties for doing so), they were mostly for Democratic Party candidates. So, who might have paid for that, if such corrupt practices had occurred?

The EC 'system' is quite open to corruption.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Extra post
edit on 5-2-2019 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
extra post
edit on 5-2-2019 by amazing because: (no reason given)







 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join