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.
originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Like other's have stated I believe this to be unconstitutional. However, if it is not brought before the SCOTUS or if it not ruled unconstitutional. . .
If I remember correctly the popular vote in 2016 was less than 3 million difference. I will laugh so hard when these states are forced to hand their EC votes to Trump.
If only the popular vote existed the majority of states would have no say in our Presidential elections making New York and California the dictatorships that will rule the United States...
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: sine.nomine
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker
This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.
It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.
Trump is from New York.
And?
He doesn't run New York. You do know that. Right?
This is such an absurd reply, it baffles me.
Don't you love it in the US, at the way empty prairie land has a bigger vote than most citizens.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut
It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes.
It could always try and go it alone.
Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.
It is "tyranny of the minority".
That's what you have.
originally posted by: chr0naut
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.
It is "tyranny of the minority".
That's what you have.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut
It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes.
It could always try and go it alone.
Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.
It is "tyranny of the minority".
That's what you have.
No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equalinreum that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.
Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games
tyranny of the minority -------------- tyranny of the minority
originally posted by: Liquesence
That is a completely BS argument.
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
If only the popular vote existed the majority of states would have no say in our Presidential elections making New York and California the dictatorships that will rule the United States...
That is a completely BS argument.
Read my post again. Popular votes tally ALL votes, and all votes count, regardless of rural or city. It does not allocate winner take all, which is disproportionate to the popular vote, as the EC does, and which disenfranchises the minority (if the EC allocated itself as proportionate to the popular vote, I would have no problem with it, but it doesn't in the majority of states). This is not about the pseudo-argument "some states will have no say," because EVERY vote will be tallied and counted across the entire country.
Try to understand.
Never underestimate stupid, it will get you every time.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: sine.nomine
I can not see the Supreme Court letting this particular idiocy stand...
God, how blindly stupid are these people??
originally posted by: sine.nomine
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: sine.nomine
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker
This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.
It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.
Trump is from New York.
And?
He doesn't run New York. You do know that. Right?
This is such an absurd reply, it baffles me.
Don't you love it in the US, at the way empty prairie land has a bigger vote than most citizens.
Explain.
BTW, I don't think you understand what sarcasm is.
originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut
Because New York City and LA can produce plenty of crops and cattle. And LA doesn't syphon water like crazy from the "less important" areas.
Read some damn history.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut
It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes.
It could always try and go it alone.
Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.
It is "tyranny of the minority".
That's what you have.
No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.
Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games
tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari
If the majority of the voters in your state vote for someone...
Then their votes are given to the winner of the popular vote and it isn't who they voted for...
Popular votes divide the vote evenly and fairly across the board: whoever gets the most in the tally wins.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut
It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes.
It could always try and go it alone.
Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.
It is "tyranny of the minority".
That's what you have.
No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.
Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games
tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority
If you are not under majority rule, you aren't being ruled or you are under minority rule. They are the only options.
Also, the proportionality of the Electoral College is based upon the number of chairs that they could cram into a rather old hall.
In a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, a couple of hundred actual voters cannot possibly be fairly representative.
538 EC electors divided by about 235,248,000 voting citizens = 0.00022869% of the population (roughly).
In other words as unrepresentative as you can get without people dying of continuous simultaneous super hard 'face palms'.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut
It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes.
It could always try and go it alone.
Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.
The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.
It is "tyranny of the minority".
That's what you have.
No that is not correct; leveling the playing field so that small states have a more equal footing as compared to big states is not "tyranny of the minority"; it's the equilibrium that insures that the conserns of all states can have the opportunity to be addressed.
Popular Vote --- Electoral College --- The Hunger Games
tyranny of the majority -------------- tyranny of the minority
If you are not under majority rule, you aren't being ruled or you are under minority rule. They are the only options.
Also, the proportionality of the Electoral College is based upon the number of chairs that they could cram into a rather old hall.
In a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, a couple of hundred actual voters cannot possibly be fairly representative.
538 EC electors divided by about 235,248,000 voting citizens = 0.00022869% of the population (roughly).
In other words as unrepresentative as you can get without people dying of continuous simultaneous super hard 'face palms'.
Why would you devide the 538 EC electors by anything more than 50? They represent the states not the people in those states.
originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut
Because New York City and LA can produce plenty of crops and cattle. And LA doesn't syphon water like crazy from the "less important" areas.
Read some damn history.