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.

 

The electoral college.

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I have heard grumblings about the E.C. for two solid years at this point. One of our members (credit where due -schuyler www.abovetopsecret.com...) recently gave a great summation of the EC:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Additional links:
www.archives.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...

Opponents of the EC, point out disenfranchised voters in states that lean heavily to one way or another are less likely to vote because of the EC (at least for national elections). Their answer is for direct democracy for the republic.

My argument is for states to insist their EC representation is proportionally allocated by voting numbers.

I understand how this might upset some people. I've lived in California for over 35 years. I'm not sure how long this state is 'winner take all,' but this outcome doesn't represent the majority of people I know.

I post this mostly to garner opinions, does a EC that splits on state popular vote help us?
Is this a reasonable alternative to the pure democracy, that the founding fathers were against?

Additional question:
Why have some states mandated not to split the EC vote, but go to a winner take all?

Respectfully posted to a forum where it's known decorum can get lost. Due to subject matter.




posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Lady in the back row raises her hand ...........microphone lowers ...
"Hi I'm Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. How many campuses does Electoral College have ? and do they offer free tuition ? Thank You"



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
someone should just alpha the entire system and implement a malevolent dictatorship, chop the heads off anyone corrupt and allow for the advancement of society



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Here is the single most important thing about the Electoral College in regards to how vitally important it is in ensuring fairness for all Americans & that the PEOPLE are represented:

Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

Since the Democrats are obsessed with lying, cheating and stealing as their core methodology, its important to ensure #ed-up bills like that retarded one never sees the light of day - its bad enough they flog votes using dead, sock puppets and illegals, give them half the chance and they will take the EC away, because democrats can't win by playing fairly.
edit on 7/2/2019 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Pelosi thanks you.
Do you want that really?



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:06 AM
link   
How about we keep it and the dems can suck a fat one, produce a challenger worth a #?

Quit offering up dog turds, I mean wtf you want?

Nobody likes any of the republican douches, again remember Trump is the giant FY because you guys put Hillary in over Bernie so there ya go deal with it stop being anuses.

edit on 7-2-2019 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I think the winner-take-all approach does a disservice to voters, leaving some with no voice, especially when a state is very divided. For instance: I live in Missouri, and St. Louis and Kansas City pretty much decide elections thanks to their population. However, MOST of Missouri is rural, and KC and St. Louis often have no freakin clue what's good for the rest of us who live outside the city.

I DO believe the Founders got it right when they created the Electoral College — without it the majority of the country would be dictated to by the few states with mega-cities — but I think for it to really work as intended, all states should award their EC votes proportionally.

On the other hand, I explained the EC to my uber-liberal but incredibly ignorant daughter, who thought it was a ridiculous and outdated idea thus:

Each state has an election, in which the voters of that state decide who they would like to be President. Then the states themselves, as separate entities, have an election where they cast their own votes for who should be President. The election we the people vote in is how the states decide which way to vote. (A lightbulb went on over her head. She'd simply never understood the purpose of the EC and once she did she decided maybe it was a good idea after all.)

So I guess it depends on how you choose to look at it. In my opinion, awarding EC votes proportionally gives all voters more of a voice — especially those who choose to vote third-party — but without descending into mob rule and dictatorship of the megacities.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Democracy doesn't age well, it's predicated on the false assumption that voters are intelligent to make the right choices

obviously that doesn't, hasn't and eventually won't work. political theory 101, dictatorships are more responsible and adaptive governments



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   
if people are feeling disenfranchised by the electoral collage seeming to make their votes not count, what about the many more who would be in fact disenfranchised by getting rid of it? when just by sheer numbers of population density mean that a very few big cities get to be the ones who decide for everyone. quite seriously if the country were to get rid of the electoral collage and go purely on popular vote most of the country outside of the big cities might as well not vote, since their votes can't stand up against the major voting blocks big cities tend to be. which is exactly WHY the founding fathers did not want it based purely on a popular vote. which even back then would have had the same result of a very few quite small but populous areas would become the de facto rulers of the entire country.

the purpose of the electoral collage was so that every area would have equal say[i] in the leadership of the country. so that an area with a low population density like farming communities and states, would have an equal say alongside big and populous cities and states. areas that by the virtue of their very differences would have different needs and wants from each other.


originally posted by: toysforadults
someone should just alpha the entire system and implement a malevolent dictatorship, chop the heads off anyone corrupt and allow for the advancement of society


sounds rather a lot like what a lot of democrats in the US and liberals around the world would like to see. and remember it's only for the good of everyone, that they would do so.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

True democracy is one of the worst ideas to ever apply.

Electoral college prevents mob rule like sedatives prevent the patients from taking over the asylum.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

You are a measured individual whom I always appreciate your perspective. I comment on your post only to express my gratitude for your involvement on the thread.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Democracy doesn't age well, it's predicated on the false assumption that voters are intelligent to make the right choices

obviously that doesn't, hasn't and eventually won't work. political theory 101, dictatorships are more responsible and adaptive governments


Logic dictates 49 % of the population is below average intelligence.
Good thing we are a republic.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Aw, thank you



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

A member here explained why we should keep the EC. She did so in a way that didn’t make fun of my ignorance but explained it in a way that I understood. I kinda feel like I can relate to your daughter in that sense. I was like a deer in the headlights for a moment.
It’s nice to have members explain things without throwing insults. Every member here has always been super helpful when I don’t understand something and am willing to ask.
So against what I was raised to believe the EC does serve a valuable purpose.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

I hope that comment didn't sound snarky, because it wasn't meant to be. Too often people say "ignorant" when they really mean...something else...but I did mean ignorant as in "unaware of the facts." It's amazing to me how many people don't know how the country is supposed to work — until I think back to when my kids were in school and what they were(n't) taught. They had very little American history, they had world history and multiculturalism. They didn't have American government unless they took it as an elective. They did have to spend a few weeks on the Missouri constitution, and pass a test over it, but not the US constitution.

Anyhow. Semi-on-topic: I think I read your post asking about the EC, and I was impressed by the explanation in reply too. And I give you a great big pat on the back for taking the time to ask the question and listen to the answer instead of just assuming it must be a bad idea cuz so-and-so said so or just because somebody wrote a bill wanting to do away with it.

Totally on topic: @generik — That's something I don't understand either. If abiding by the will of the majority of people in your state leaves you feeling disenfranchised, how much more disenfranchised will you (not you personally, but "you" generally) be when another state in another, wildly different but highly populated, part of the country gets to decide everything for you? I guess it boils down the mistaken idea that "our side" is always right and always the majority. Ugh. We might as well opt for trial-by-combat; it would be about as fair as direct democracy. After all, for those pushing for direct democracy, might (in the form of larger population numbers) is right (even if those numbers are concentrated in very small areas), eh? Give me the EC any day, proportional votes or not.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Lady in the back row raises her hand ...........microphone lowers ...
"Hi I'm Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. How many campuses does Electoral College have ? and do they offer free tuition ? Thank You"


It would be funnier if she actually said it.

Like Donald Trump saying he'd date his daughter.

That's really messed up.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Which voter category are you in? And how do you know?



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
I post this mostly to garner opinions, does a EC that splits on state popular vote help us?
Is this a reasonable alternative to the pure democracy, that the founding fathers were against?


Only two states currently allow for near-proportional electoral votes: Maine and Nebraska.

Nebraska, as an example, is a state where statewide GOP candidates typically win just under 60% of the vote. Despite that, one electoral vote went to Barack Obama in 2008 from Nebraska. Of the 40% of voters who voted for him that year, 20% of their electoral votes were awarded to him.

Similarly, in 2016, Donald J. Trump won 44% of the vote in Maine and received one electoral vote to Hillary Clinton's three as she won 47% of the vote.

Many, many more states used to use the Nebraska/Maine method in the late 19th century. As is often the case though, party politics at the state level reformed the electoral college to create Red and Blue states. The party's that had majorities in their states made it so only their party's candidate would get electoral votes and deny their opponent any electoral votes at all.


Additional question:
Why have some states mandated not to split the EC vote, but go to a winner take all?


Because politics. It's fun to think that party politics didn't exist 200 years ago, but they did and they've shaped our country just as the do today. We have 435 Representatives in congress today because one party didn't want to lose their majority 100 years ago.



posted on Feb, 7 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

Many, many more states used to use the Nebraska/Maine method in the late 19th century. As is often the case though, party politics at the state level reformed the electoral college to create Red and Blue states. The party's that had majorities in their states made it so only their party's candidate would get electoral votes and deny their opponent any electoral votes at all.



Wow, I had no idea. Thanks for the education!




top topics



 
10

log in

join