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.

 

"Nuclear option" used - Good!

page: 3
44
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.


Despite all the 'this stands for that' bait and switch (the idea that the EC voters 'represent' a population), the Electoral College actually and finally comes down to 538 individual, pre-selected 'electors'. This is why 270 votes = a majority.

Here's a hint, are any of those EC electors chosen by a vote of all the electors of the state as being representative of the political will of the constituency, or is it the case that in most states the existing governing political party (even at the national level) makes that decision? Where is the voice of independents or opposition parties or even of the actual constituents in the decision?

Stage magicians use the same misdirection trick. It doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if they have already palmed a hand of their preferred cards which they will use while you are watching the shuffle.

The Electoral College process is sleight of hand with a loaded deck, controlled by the deep state that rules you.


All state electors nominated by party, and are voted for by state residents, and in turn they cast their vote accordingly. So right off the bat you're wrong.

Now we can examine how Democrats stole the nomination from Bernie with sleight of hand and "super-delegates", if you'd like.


Educate yourself: Who are the electors? - Politico

... but does it matter, because at the end of the day, only 537 actual people elect the President.

This means that a well funded attempt to pervert the system could simply buy the Presidency. What protections are there that prevents that scenario? Or the scenario of other threats or inducements being used?

If you analyze the 2016 faithless electors, they were predominantly Democrat, so if there were corrupt practices occurring, which party would that most likely fall to?

The 10 faithless electors represent about 1.86% of the entire EC votes. The six elector difference between the actual party votes and the expected party votes represents only about 1.12% of the full electoral roll and so the faithless electors had significant impact on the outcome.

And, what penalties have been applied or what investigations have been done into the faithless electors?

The EC system is incredibly open to corruption where the potential rewards for "throwing the race" can significantly outweigh the penalties.

537 people do not represent 320 million people. They just don't, and can't and the low number means that corruption can be highly effective and easy to hide.

edit on 7/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Second amendment prevents that scenario you named.

The legal system doesn't have a remedy for every problem.

Further, most states punish faithless electors with fines and/or jail time.

And allowing the population itself to vote would be stupid. Have you seen how ill informed most folks are on the actual issues? Giving them an actual say would be a big mistake.
edit on 4/7/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Second amendment prevents that scenario you named.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

- How the hell does this prevent undue influence over Electoral College voters?

Consider this (hypothetical?) scenario, say one of those on the EC slate for a particular state that was run by the blue team, runs a business that supplies steel or concrete. They are approached by a representative of the red team who suggests, quietly, that their candidate proposes a large infrastructure project (a wall) requiring vast amounts of raw materials like steel and concrete. They can guarantee that if the elector is faithless, their candidate will place the electors business as primary supplier, a contract worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars over many years - and it'd be for the good of the country (wink, wink).


The legal system doesn't have a remedy for every problem.


Especially if we ignore known problems, just because!


Further, most states punish faithless electors with fines and/or jail time.


Which in itself is arguably unconstitutional but even if there were a penalty of 4th degree felony charge (most probably 180 days or less of prison time and/or a fine of up to $1000) most would see that they are hardly a disincentive, compared to being set up for a life of wealth.


And allowing the population itself to vote would be stupid. Have you seen how ill informed most folks are on the actual issues? Giving them an actual say would be a big mistake.


So allowing all the stupid people to vote is different than allowing only a few stupid people to vote?

... and what of the vast numbers of non-stupid people you are excluding from having their say?

edit on 7/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ah, It may be I was replying to a different thread (or meaning to anyhow)

I am unable to grasp my original point here


The elector system isn't perfect, neither is a direct election. Frankly, I think that is an argument for *not* having a Federal government involved in anything but its original purpose (which could be counted on one hand)

Just because Statists have taken us down the slippery slope of expanding what should've been a micro-government doesn't mean we should accept it however

Your point is correct about the electors, I don't have a good answer here. I don't mean to say "stupid people" I mean those without actual knowledge of the issues AND qualification of basics civics understanding

When you have people quoting "separation of powers" in reference to the DOJ and executive branch you know something is terribly wrong

edit: I wish I had all the answers
edit on 4/7/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.


Despite all the 'this stands for that' bait and switch (the idea that the EC voters 'represent' a population), the Electoral College actually and finally comes down to 538 individual, pre-selected 'electors'. This is why 270 votes = a majority.

Here's a hint, are any of those EC electors chosen by a vote of all the electors of the state as being representative of the political will of the constituency, or is it the case that in most states the existing governing political party (even at the national level) makes that decision? Where is the voice of independents or opposition parties or even of the actual constituents in the decision?

Stage magicians use the same misdirection trick. It doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if they have already palmed a hand of their preferred cards which they will use while you are watching the shuffle.

The Electoral College process is sleight of hand with a loaded deck, controlled by the deep state that rules you.


All state electors nominated by party, and are voted for by state residents, and in turn they cast their vote accordingly. So right off the bat you're wrong.

Now we can examine how Democrats stole the nomination from Bernie with sleight of hand and "super-delegates", if you'd like.


Educate yourself: Who are the electors? - Politico

... but does it matter, because at the end of the day, only 537 actual people elect the President.

This means that a well funded attempt to pervert the system could simply buy the Presidency. What protections are there that prevents that scenario? Or the scenario of other threats or inducements being used?

If you analyze the 2016 faithless electors, they were predominantly Democrat, so if there were corrupt practices occurring, which party would that most likely fall to?

The 10 faithless electors represent about 1.86% of the entire EC votes. The six elector difference between the actual party votes and the expected party votes represents only about 1.12% of the full electoral roll and so the faithless electors had significant impact on the outcome.

And, what penalties have been applied or what investigations have been done into the faithless electors?

The EC system is incredibly open to corruption where the potential rewards for "throwing the race" can significantly outweigh the penalties.

537 people do not represent 320 million people. They just don't, and can't and the low number means that corruption can be highly effective and easy to hide.


If you wanna educate me, or suggest that I do it myself, try not to use such a biased source like Politico.

Heres the thing. Clinton tried to cheat her way into the WH. The will of the people won out. Sorry for California and New York not getting their way. Nah, not sorry.



posted on Apr, 8 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.


Despite all the 'this stands for that' bait and switch (the idea that the EC voters 'represent' a population), the Electoral College actually and finally comes down to 538 individual, pre-selected 'electors'. This is why 270 votes = a majority.

Here's a hint, are any of those EC electors chosen by a vote of all the electors of the state as being representative of the political will of the constituency, or is it the case that in most states the existing governing political party (even at the national level) makes that decision? Where is the voice of independents or opposition parties or even of the actual constituents in the decision?

Stage magicians use the same misdirection trick. It doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if they have already palmed a hand of their preferred cards which they will use while you are watching the shuffle.

The Electoral College process is sleight of hand with a loaded deck, controlled by the deep state that rules you.


All state electors nominated by party, and are voted for by state residents, and in turn they cast their vote accordingly. So right off the bat you're wrong.

Now we can examine how Democrats stole the nomination from Bernie with sleight of hand and "super-delegates", if you'd like.


Educate yourself: Who are the electors? - Politico

... but does it matter, because at the end of the day, only 537 actual people elect the President.

This means that a well funded attempt to pervert the system could simply buy the Presidency. What protections are there that prevents that scenario? Or the scenario of other threats or inducements being used?

If you analyze the 2016 faithless electors, they were predominantly Democrat, so if there were corrupt practices occurring, which party would that most likely fall to?

The 10 faithless electors represent about 1.86% of the entire EC votes. The six elector difference between the actual party votes and the expected party votes represents only about 1.12% of the full electoral roll and so the faithless electors had significant impact on the outcome.

And, what penalties have been applied or what investigations have been done into the faithless electors?

The EC system is incredibly open to corruption where the potential rewards for "throwing the race" can significantly outweigh the penalties.

537 people do not represent 320 million people. They just don't, and can't and the low number means that corruption can be highly effective and easy to hide.


If you wanna educate me, or suggest that I do it myself, try not to use such a biased source like Politico.

Heres the thing. Clinton tried to cheat her way into the WH. The will of the people won out. Sorry for California and New York not getting their way. Nah, not sorry.



How was she cheating? As far as I know, she won the popular vote in the normal way.

Although, in a way, I'm sort of glad she lost. Neither she nor Trump were great choices.

The question is, how does a 21st century nation that prides itself on its political altruism, come to having only a choice between two unpopular and sub-par options, without anyone demanding that the situation be fixed! Have they put something like Bromide in your water (like we know they did in Flynt)?


edit on 8/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Or it's a travesty of justice for a minority to push their agenda on the majority.

Depends on the way you squint when you look at things.



Re-read what you wrote, and then pretend the subject is the Electoral College.

Get back to me when you understand the irony.


Personally, I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that is inappropriate in modern America. Populations, economic mix and trade changes have meant that the reasons for the implementation of the Electoral College are totally gone.

Now the Electoral College is the way a privileged minority can maintain power over a vastly varied and enormous population base.

In that regard, I believe (and perhaps agree) that the Electoral College should go the way of the dinosaur, too.


Yeah, so you are willing to take the voices away from many, for the sake of the few in a couple populous areas.

You're not a hypocrite at all.


You have things backwards.

With the Electoral College, the votes of 270 people have the ultimate say over who is President of the USA. Despite all the previous number juggling, polls, talk radio, sleight of hand and the democratic electoral process that runs in parallel, it ultimately comes down to 270 votes. That is what the EC means, 270 is a majority and wins the Presidency.

So, the 'few' you are speaking of, are the voting citizens of the USA, about 250 million. The 'many' you spoke of, in regard to the EC, are only 270.

You need to get your definitions right.

Thank you. I agree that I'm not a hypocrite.



Each state is given a number of EC votes, based on population taken from census data. A state like California (With 55 electoral votes) or New York has a much higher population than states like North Dakota. However, there is only a handful of states like this. A minority, if you will. If we only used the popular vote, 5 states (the few) would determine the election outcome for all 50 states, because candidates would bypass those "flyover states" and never court the rural population in their campaigning and policy. 45 states (the many) with millions of people would have no voice.

I don't think you understand our system as well as you think you do.


Despite all the 'this stands for that' bait and switch (the idea that the EC voters 'represent' a population), the Electoral College actually and finally comes down to 538 individual, pre-selected 'electors'. This is why 270 votes = a majority.

Here's a hint, are any of those EC electors chosen by a vote of all the electors of the state as being representative of the political will of the constituency, or is it the case that in most states the existing governing political party (even at the national level) makes that decision? Where is the voice of independents or opposition parties or even of the actual constituents in the decision?

Stage magicians use the same misdirection trick. It doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if they have already palmed a hand of their preferred cards which they will use while you are watching the shuffle.

The Electoral College process is sleight of hand with a loaded deck, controlled by the deep state that rules you.


All state electors nominated by party, and are voted for by state residents, and in turn they cast their vote accordingly. So right off the bat you're wrong.

Now we can examine how Democrats stole the nomination from Bernie with sleight of hand and "super-delegates", if you'd like.


Educate yourself: Who are the electors? - Politico

... but does it matter, because at the end of the day, only 537 actual people elect the President.

This means that a well funded attempt to pervert the system could simply buy the Presidency. What protections are there that prevents that scenario? Or the scenario of other threats or inducements being used?

If you analyze the 2016 faithless electors, they were predominantly Democrat, so if there were corrupt practices occurring, which party would that most likely fall to?

The 10 faithless electors represent about 1.86% of the entire EC votes. The six elector difference between the actual party votes and the expected party votes represents only about 1.12% of the full electoral roll and so the faithless electors had significant impact on the outcome.

And, what penalties have been applied or what investigations have been done into the faithless electors?

The EC system is incredibly open to corruption where the potential rewards for "throwing the race" can significantly outweigh the penalties.

537 people do not represent 320 million people. They just don't, and can't and the low number means that corruption can be highly effective and easy to hide.


If you wanna educate me, or suggest that I do it myself, try not to use such a biased source like Politico.

Heres the thing. Clinton tried to cheat her way into the WH. The will of the people won out. Sorry for California and New York not getting their way. Nah, not sorry.



How was she cheating? As far as I know, she won the popular vote in the normal way.

Although, in a way, I'm sort of glad she lost. Neither she nor Trump were great choices.

The question is, how does a 21st century nation that prides itself on its political altruism, come to having only a choice between two unpopular and sub-par options, without anyone demanding that the situation be fixed! Have they put something like Bromide in your water (like we know they did in Flynt)?



Did you so easily forget that she colluded with Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to win the DNC nomination?

And that's just your opinion. Turns out, Trump is accomplishing quite a bit of what he promised. That's a hellava lot more than many prior Presidents can claim.

Why don't we ask other 21st century countries who seem to be having problems with representing its people about that.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join