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.

 

Beto O’Rourke: ‘A Lot of Wisdom’ in Abolishing Electoral College

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
States are not separate countries, they all fall under that same federal government. It's not comparable to EU.



Well it is comparable as states are independent of each other and only federal laws binds them, just like the EU is now. So CA has popular votes for all 55 of their electoral college's votes, but they want more power since smaller states get at least 3 and that doesn't align directly with population do to the shared equal power all the states have, so they want more power in the election.

What you are asking for is to get rid of the republic...If you do not like a republic then you can go to Australia I guess and enjoy their democracy.


edit on 23-3-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If this happens the low population states might as well depart the US. There would be no interest in anything local. They would be run by the whims of the big states. This is a true death of the US.
What happened to taxation without representation? Did we forget that?
It's all a grab for power. If the rules don't work for you change the rules.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: datasdream
If this happens the low population states might as well depart the US. There would be no interest in anything local. They would be run by the whims of the big states. This is a true death of the US.
What happened to taxation without representation? Did we forget that?
It's all a grab for power. If the rules don't work for you change the rules.


The whims of the big states? If the president's campaign was about getting the most people, he could campaign in ANY state and it would be relevant to the election, rather than focusing on strictly swing states or flipping states that are wavering. It would change to focus to America as a whole. You think equal votes automatically means California will start controlling everything??? HOW??? Popular vote means California does not have power, the entire population of the USA does, so even if more Californians vote democrat, it still matters what the rest of the country does. California only makes up 40m out of nearly 330m of the US population.

I just think a lot of voices are being suppressed because of this system and it discourages voting.
edit on 3 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What you are asking for is to get rid of the republic...If you do not like a republic then you can go to Australia I guess and enjoy their democracy.



NO. I'm asking for a democratic voting system for electing PRESIDENT. I'm not asking to change anything else.
edit on 3 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

NO. I'm asking for a democratic voting system for electing PRESIDENT. I'm not asking to change anything else.


Lol OK, no changes... geez



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Barcs

NO. I'm asking for a democratic voting system for electing PRESIDENT. I'm not asking to change anything else.


Lol OK, no changes... geez


You are acting like I want to ditch the entire thing over the method by which we elect the president. That is LOL!
edit on 3 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

You are acting like I want to ditch the entire thing over the method by which we elect the president. That is LOL!


No just change the fundamental way our forefathers felt the desire to prevent tyranny and keep the independence of the states intact. Our forefathers were rather smart individuals, but it seems you are smarter in your no change, change.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What you are asking for is to get rid of the republic...If you do not like a republic then you can go to Australia I guess and enjoy their democracy.



NO. I'm asking for a democratic voting system for electing PRESIDENT. I'm not asking to change anything else.


That IS getting rid of the republic, and rewriting the Constitution.

Even though I understand your point, I'm not up for that whatsoever.
edit on 3232019 by Mach2 because: Sp



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Barcs

You are acting like I want to ditch the entire thing over the method by which we elect the president. That is LOL!


No just change the fundamental way our forefathers felt the desire to prevent tyranny and keep the independence of the states intact. Our forefathers were rather smart individuals, but it seems you are smarter in your no change, change.


Yes, because America today is not corrupt in the slightest, right? Our forefathers would be perfectly happy seeing this mess where the big presidential candidates and a large amount of congress are owned by corporate interests, and campaigning is like an "America's Got Talent" episode. We are a democratic republic. You are throwing away the democratic part.

It's 2019. The forefathers couldn't have possibly envisioned the world as it is today. They didn't expect huge international bankers and corporations to run the world. They expected lots of small to medium businesses to flourish. It's a much different world today. I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bath water, but modifications to bring it up to date can be a good thing.


edit on 3 23 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

That IS getting rid of the republic, and rewriting the Constitution.

Even though I understand your point, I'm not up for that whatsoever.


Our forefathers were so concern with the chances of Tyranny that they didn't even want a Constitution. We almost went the way of independent States and an extremely small with very little power fed Government. They wanted to keep the power in the hands of the states and so how we vote for the President is a big part of what they wanted to actually have a fed Government.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Yes, because America today is not corrupt in the slightest, right? Our forefathers would be perfectly happy seeing this mess where the big presidential candidates and a large amount of congress are owned by corporate interests, and campaigning is like an "America's Got Talent" episode. We are a democratic republic. You are throwing away the democratic part.

It's 2019. The forefathers couldn't have possibly envisioned the world as it is today. They didn't expect huge international bankers and corporations to run the world. They expected lots of small to medium businesses to flourish. It's a much different world today. I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bath water, but modifications to bring it up to date can be a good thing.



They would be sick with concern at the size of the federal Government and you want to do away with a process to keep that in check. Modify to fit the flavor of the week... There is a reason the Constitution is not a living document.


edit on 23-3-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Amen! The Constitution is written in stone, to be followed VERBATIM It is amazing so many today do not understand this or the value of keeping government in a chokehold using it

It will Not be legislated away, not be "interpreted" away, not be pop-outraged away, and the like

It is NOT void where prohibited by law, and any disagreement between the law and the Constitution means the law is automatically wrong.

Great post sir, well said



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
You are certainly correct that the founders would find immense fault with the way we operate now.

With respect to how the president is chosen, however, I don't think they would have regrets.

If you look at the presidency, historically there haven't been any dynasties. It has been fairly equally balanced, as far as both parties getting their chance. The presidency flips back, and forth, sometimes every four years, usually every eight. Once in a while you get twelve (Reagan/Bush, FDR).

I dont see how much fairer you could expect it to be.

If it ain't broke, dont fix it, is appropriate here.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Xtrozero

Amen! The Constitution is written in stone, to be followed VERBATIM It is amazing so many today do not understand this or the value of keeping government in a chokehold using it

It will Not be legislated away, not be "interpreted" away, not be pop-outraged away, and the like

It is NOT void where prohibited by law, and any disagreement between the law and the Constitution means the law is automatically wrong.

Great post sir, well said


Absolutely correct sir.

If the Contitution needs to be changed, there is a mechanism to do so. It purposely has a difficult threshold to achieve, as to make it necessary for widespread agreement.

Genius really.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What you are asking for is to get rid of the republic...If you do not like a republic then you can go to Australia I guess and enjoy their democracy.



NO. I'm asking for a democratic voting system for electing PRESIDENT. I'm not asking to change anything else.


President of the United States, not President of the People of the United States.

States determine the Electoral Votes, not the people.

The Legislative Branch is elected by popular vote. (More's the pity for the Senate.)

There is no inherent value in direct popular vote of the federal executive branch.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

Absolutely correct sir.

If the Contitution needs to be changed, there is a mechanism to do so. It purposely has a difficult threshold to achieve, as to make it necessary for widespread agreement.

Genius really.


And once again it changed by the states, not the people through popular vote. There is one change that is forbidden...


An amendment can change any part of the Constitution, except one—no amendment can change the rule that each state has an equal number of Senators in the United States Senate.


The equality of the states, that equality is built into the electoral college too...


edit on 23-3-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Mach2


If the Contitution needs to be changed, there is a mechanism to do so. It purposely has a difficult threshold to achieve,


It is terrible so many US citizens have forgotten this

Our founding fathers really did think of everything, I think they would be appalled to see such a large faction of Americans outright advocating for the destruction of Constitutional government in exchange for some non-feasible "progressive agenda"

Good seeing you around Mach2, it is great to see Patriots here on ATS and elsewhere reminding Americans that our Constitution isn't up for negotiation (outside of the established process for calling a convention)



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What you are asking for is to get rid of the republic...If you do not like a republic then you can go to Australia I guess and enjoy their democracy.



NO. I'm asking for a democratic voting system for electing PRESIDENT. I'm not asking to change anything else.


We have one.

Each state has its own state-wide popular vote for the presidency and them assigns its electors based on that outcome. So instead of one big nationwide popular vote, we have 50 state popular votes for the electors of each of the 50 states.

Even back in the days of the Founders, it was recognized that a national popular vote would give some of the states disproportionate power over the states with small population and those smaller states refused a national popular vote system. The Electoral College was a relevant then as it is now in order to keep the larger states from overwhelming the smaller ones. The only thing that has changed as time has gone on is which states have more population then others.



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

We are not a democracy, however. That word doesn't show up one single time in our Constitution or its BOR.

Admittedly, we are democratic in nature... in the sense Citizens of each state elect their state executives directly and determine how their state's electors will vote.

Allowing popular vote to elect the President would give California (one single state in the Union) the ability to single handedly elect the President. Why would smaller states even bother to stick around if that is the case?

The States elect the President - and the States determine how their election is handled. There is no national election, per se. Instead, each State elects the President and how that is handled is based on that State's laws



posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   
If only the dems put as much effort into fixing ur problems as they do trying to shortcut winning elections.
Change the EC
Let kids vote(16)
Change the scotus

How about you jackasses start serving the american people instead of just finding cheap ways to win elections.




top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join