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: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
double post

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




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Sorry, i'm having trouble making myself clear. My fault entirely.

To keep it simple. I think everyone should vote, in every election. What I'm saying is. Republican votes for President in Oregon don't count under the electoral college. They just don't matter, but in a popular voting system, they would count. Every last one of them. Does that make sense?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

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?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


Didn't say you were, you are in the Trans-Tasman union. I'm saying your views are like other small country views and America is not one single country.



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).


Economy of scale is not population based, so having more people doesn't make things cheaper as what would happen in production. Typically with population you have a diseconomy of scale as in the simple example below.





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



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   

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.




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


Didn't say you were, you are in the Trans-Tasman union. I'm saying your views are like other small country views and America is not one single country.



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).


Economy of scale is not population based, so having more people doesn't make things cheaper as what would happen in production. Typically with population you have a diseconomy of scale as in the simple example below.




There are also many who disagree with that:

Economic benefits of a large growing population: what experts say - Reason



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

To keep it simple. I think everyone should vote, in every election. What I'm saying is. Republican votes for President in Oregon don't count under the electoral college. They just don't matter, but in a popular voting system, they would count. Every last one of them. Does that make sense?


I think what you are saying is Conservative people stay home because they are in a blue state and if their vote counted they would actually vote more and that could change the popular vote. But we can say the same thing in the red state about liberals, AND 2 states actually split their EC votes based on the voting outcomes in their state. We can also say that Liberals in CA stay home because they know they will win and they do not want to wait hours in line while America Got Talent is on.

To be honest I voted by mail for a very long time now...



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

There are also many who disagree with that:


>a greater domestic market OK

>attracting investors and multinational companies Maybe

>stimulating investment in knowledge I don't agree

>generating more new ideas which improve productivity I don't agree

>market size stimulates innovative activity OK

>increasing learning-by-doing due to pressures of increased production volume I don't agree

>more workers Don't see this as a good thing

>more young people energizing the economy I don't agree

>increased consumption driving manufacturing and services OK, but the manufacturing is in other countries

>increased national savings I don't agree

>a big home market that is an attractive prize for successful new products I don't agree

>greater economies of scale (less cost in production per unit with increase of volume) I don't agree

>an absolutely larger number of outstanding, highly effective people I don't agree



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Now you see there?

That's how compromise works...




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: amazing

To keep it simple. I think everyone should vote, in every election. What I'm saying is. Republican votes for President in Oregon don't count under the electoral college. They just don't matter, but in a popular voting system, they would count. Every last one of them. Does that make sense?


I think what you are saying is Conservative people stay home because they are in a blue state and if their vote counted they would actually vote more and that could change the popular vote. But we can say the same thing in the red state about liberals, AND 2 states actually split their EC votes based on the voting outcomes in their state. We can also say that Liberals in CA stay home because they know they will win and they do not want to wait hours in line while America Got Talent is on.

To be honest I voted by mail for a very long time now...


Yeah. And yes I think that liberals and conservatives don't vote because they know they're vote wont' count when they're in a state that always goes one way in presidential elections. I want every American's vote to count.

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



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   

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



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

Not long, I'd have to guess. There'd be a bit of a problem with very, very unhappy voters. I'd be among them.

If my state, currently Washington, cast it's electoral votes for Trump, rather than Clinton-who won the state-that would be, in my eyes, and the eyes of many--election fraud.

I thought election fraud was bad...who knew?



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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...



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

It is.

Deep down inside, they have to know that this incredible swing to the left is not self-sustaining. People of a much more moderate persuasion, such as myself, are leaving the party already.

For the party to even tacitly support this sort of thing will make even more of them leave. They're dooming themselves to a secondary roll in the near future. IMHO, of course. Others may take a differing view--and probably will.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

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



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

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




top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join