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.
I dont have to call a constitutional convention. The constitution doesnt need to be changed.
I can however talk to my fellow residents of my state and present my argument as to why the state should change the way they chose to handle our delegates, that maybe those delegates should be assigned in a manner that better reflects the voters of the state.
And, I can present it on a more national level to convince the residents of other states to work to change the system in their own state.
As far as yous knowing what is on my mind...
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The essence of the right to vote is that the vote be counted. In first past the post, all Electors are awarded to the candidate in first place, thus votes that were cast for other Electors are negated, ignored, made of no effect.
I suppose you could make a semantic argument (I know how you favor those) that the votes are counted technically, but having no effect according to the intent of the voter, that would be ... kinda dumb.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Some are suggesting that this plan (which is not my invention) is intended to hand the election to Clinton rather than Trump.
Here’s the outcome if we gave 2 votes from every state to first place winner, and a percentage of the votes for each state based on the voting in that State:
Trump 263
Clinton 253
Johnson 16
Stein 6
Why, look at that, Mr. Trump would still be President of the United States. So much for ignorant or deceptive misrepresentation.
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
originally posted by: Gryphon66
The essence of the right to vote is that the vote be counted. In first past the post, all Electors are awarded to the candidate in first place, thus votes that were cast for other Electors are negated, ignored, made of no effect.
I suppose you could make a semantic argument (I know how you favor those) that the votes are counted technically, but having no effect according to the intent of the voter, that would be ... kinda dumb.
There are no semantics. There is no 'intent of the voters.' The Electoral College represents the State as a whole, not the 'intent of the voter.' If the State says 'winner takes all' then it's winner takes all. If the State says 'each district is winner-take-all then the 2 senatorial votes go to State popular vote' then so be it.
So please drop the 'intents' and 'equities' and any other sound bites, they are meaningless. Oh I mean ... REALLY dumb.
Ain't never been to NY City.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu
I believe you’re trying to say that in the case of a tie in the Electoral College, the matter is decided by vote in the House.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
You’re arguing about words and claiming there are no semantics. LOL.
The Electoral College mirrors the Congress. I guess in your mind that is accidental? Of course, the Electors represent the will of the voter, what else?
You can bray all day long that The State decides ... as if that is some entity hovering over something somewhere. The State legislatures (to be precise) are also representatives chosen by ... wait for it... the popular vote.
Were you trying to refer to sound bytes? Jeez. That’s unfortunate right before you call someone else dumb, eh?
brians.wsu.edu...
A “sound bite” is a brief snippet of recorded speech, usually used in the context of news reporting. The term originated around 1980, long before the recording of such snippets on personal computers was common; so those who argue that the correct spelling is “sound byte” are mistaken.
Dude ... I really don’t know what you’re on about. I made an argument and defended it. You’re just ... acting kinda whiny if I may say so.
Let it go.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu
NOTE: You were right about sound bite. I was mistaken. Well done, thanks for the lesson!
Now, In rough order:
No I’m not incorrect about anything. I’ve made arguments that you don’t agree with. You’re clearly not an authority on any subject except for sound bites.
Every State currently awards its Electors based on the popular vote. The first place winner takes ALL the Electors.
You’re quite simply being dishonest about the Supreme Court ruling in Baca ... that hasn’t happened. It has been appealed to the SCOTUS. Interesting that you choose to misrepresent so much in this argument. The case also doesn’t regard what you claim but rather deals with the matter of “Faithless” Electors. So far, the decisions have been that a State has no power to remove an Elector once chosen. (Guess how they’re chosen.)
The Legislatures are not the President. Good for you. I didn’t say that, another intentional dishonesty on your part.
The State legislatures ARE ELECTED by popular vote. United States Representatives and Senators ARE ELECTED by popular vote. This TERROR that so many of you two-party supporters seem to feel at the power of what you call “raw” democracy is quite telling. You support the two-party system, pure and simple. Are you financially connected to one party or another? I see no reason for this slavish mentality.
I’ve told you repeatedly, and you’re just muddying the issue, so I’ll tell you again.
The State legislatures decide how Electors are chosen. Electors are and have been chosen via the popular vote. Most States continued the tradition of “first past the post” from the British Parliament, but ours is not a parliamentary system, and that doesn’t necessarily fit our situation.
The States could choose to give the two votes that mirror the Senators from each State via the “first past the post” method, and the remainder of the States votes could reflect the will of the ENTIRE people proportionally, by not disenfranchising the voters for every candidate that doesn’t come in first. This is not a radical change, it actually brings the Presidential election in line with our other elections while maintaining the traditions of the Electoral College and requirements of the Constitution..
Further, just as a reminder, the Electoral College does nothing to protect “smaller states” from larger ones. CA has 55 votes; Wyoming has 3.
Why do you want to cheat 40-50% of American voters out of their votes? Why do you want to maintain the hegemony of the “two party system”?
Alternatively I wouldn't mind if we actually had the Electors on the ballots instead of the Presidential candidates, and those Electors pledged who they would vote for up front.