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 is racist and should be abolished

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBIZZ

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JBIZZ

The Electoral College does NOT give each State equal representation. It mirrors the makeup of the Congress.


Congress represents each state. Each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states. Hence equal state representation.


No. California has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3.

ETA: You really don’t seem to understand the basics here.

Every State gets 2 Senate Seats
Every State gets House Representation proportional to the population in the last census.

At present, this means there are 100 seats in the Senate, and 435 in the House.

The states are not equally represented in the House, because that is based on population.

The States are equally represented in the Senate, 2 for each State.

This was called the Grand Compromise.

The Electoral College mirrors this exactly with the exception that Washington DC has three votes only in the EC.

Thus Wyoming has 3 EC votes, 2 for the Senators and one for the House Rep.

California has 55 EC votes, 2 for the Senators and 53 for the House Reps.

Therefore, as I’ve pointed out before, since all States aware their Electors to the Candidate who won the POPULAR VOTE in their State, the EC is for the most part based on the POPULAR VOTE.

What is not equitable about the EC is that States use the First Past the Post system ... which awards ALL state Electors to the winner of the Popular Vote.

In the last election 2016, this resulted in 4.5 million Trump voters in CA having their votes negated.

That is not fair.
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

How about by county?


As long as it’s proportional, so that no one is disenfranchised, I’m good.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Now that the SCOTUS has decided to look the other way on gerrymandering, I’m pretty sure the Republcians will soon be jumping on making the national standard based on congressional districts ... as the Dems have let them arrange those to their liking.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I don't know if its racist but here would be a soultion to the teraney of the large cities within states and that would be....

There are a little over 3000 counties within the USA, if we broke it down by county level rather than the state level it would be a better representation of the voters rather than one large city carring the whole state.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
One county, one vote. Can’t be gerrymandered that way. Of course Preble County, Ohio (population 41,000) would be equal to Hamilton County, Ohio (population 814,000). In 2016, Hillary won 8 counties in Ohio to Trump’s 80. Straight up population vote was 2.8 million for Trump and 2.4 million for Hillary.

Odd fact, of the 13 Ohio counties Bernie won over Hillary in the primary, Hillary only recovered one from Trump taking the other 12. That is some hate in evidence right there.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar
Here in Kansas we have rwo large cities Wichita and KC Kansas. If a candidate for national office carries either on of these cities they carry the whole state. How fair is that to the rual folks who dont live in a large cities?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Same situation here in Washington State. If King county wants it, the whole state is screwed.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Why should the county be the unit of national voting again?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Assign the States Electoral College votes based on the way the people vote. That way, the rural folks votes count the same as the city folks.

1 person, one vote.

As it is in every state, the “losing” candidates voters get nothing. How is that fair or equitable?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The answer to why the way the States assign their Electors is because of the stranglehold of the two-party system.

First past the post virtually eliminates any other party from being competitive.

So, when you all glorify the current system, keep in mind, you’re perpetuating the two Parties NOT the will of the People.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Assign the States Electoral College votes based on the way the people vote. That way, the rural folks votes count the same as the city folks.

1 person, one vote.

As it is in every state, the “losing” candidates voters get nothing. How is that fair or equitable?


How fair is it lets say they put forward a sales tax increase the large city votes yeas and the rural votes no who wins the large city compared to the whole state.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Assign the States Electoral College votes based on the way the people vote. That way, the rural folks votes count the same as the city folks.

1 person, one vote.

As it is in every state, the “losing” candidates voters get nothing. How is that fair or equitable?


How fair is it lets say they put forward a sales tax increase the large city votes yeas and the rural votes no who wins the large city compared to the whole state.


I thought we were discussing representation in the Electoral College.

If we are talking local or State government ... does your State vote on sales tax?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Assign the States Electoral College votes based on the way the people vote. That way, the rural folks votes count the same as the city folks.

1 person, one vote.

As it is in every state, the “losing” candidates voters get nothing. How is that fair or equitable?


How fair is it lets say they put forward a sales tax increase the large city votes yeas and the rural votes no who wins the large city compared to the whole state.


I thought we were discussing representation in the Electoral College.


If we are talking local or State government ... does your State vote on sales tax?


It was an example of how the large cities can and do dominate the election process as opposed to rural voter. The process we have today focuses on the large urban areas to carry a whole state rather than the whole state having equal representation when it come to votes. The problem with the one vote as in popular is the same problem one large city can and will carry the state.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Assign the States Electoral College votes based on the way the people vote. That way, the rural folks votes count the same as the city folks.

1 person, one vote.

As it is in every state, the “losing” candidates voters get nothing. How is that fair or equitable?


How fair is it lets say they put forward a sales tax increase the large city votes yeas and the rural votes no who wins the large city compared to the whole state.


I thought we were discussing representation in the Electoral College.


If we are talking local or State government ... does your State vote on sales tax?


It was an example of how the large cities can and do dominate the election process as opposed to rural voter. The process we have today focuses on the large urban areas to carry a whole state rather than the whole state having equal representation when it come to votes. The problem with the one vote as in popular is the same problem one large city can and will carry the state.


So ... if that’s true and the large city has 60% of the vote and the rural areas have 40% of the vote, in the current system the city gets 100% of the Electoral College.

Wouldn’t you rather see the EC votes divided up 60% / 40%? Why should the 40% have their votes taken away?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

According to the Constitution, states are allowed to assign their electors any way they want. A few assign them based on percentage, with the two 'extra' going to the state popular vote. All it takes to accomplish that is the state legislature.

It sounds like you want to force every state to assign their electors the way you want... is that correct?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why not? Makes as much sense as the people of LA, San Fran, Chicago, NYC and Dallas deciding. I mean look beyond politics but just day to day life. People in those cities have little need for a conibear trap, yet can they be rather useful around here for coyotes and bobcats. Same argument for firearms.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66 Good idea, award the votes proportionally within each state. This would still retains the extra votes for small states, but still make all the votes count in non-swing states. It also would make 'routine' cheating only effective enough to change a vote per state, not the whole state.

Actually the States decide how to award the votes, first past the post is not mandated. So the whole arrangement is not consistent.

To add to the fun, the Constitution has the Electors actually voting, the votes are not 'assigned'. The Electors have been unfaithful sometimes but not enough to change the final result (YET). There is currently a federal court case to make this legitimate, to override state requirements or laws as to who they have to vote for, so that the Electors can vote for who they want, and are not committed to anyone. The Framers wanted a body to keep the passions of the public from electing a coarse vulagr man who attains power by arousing irrational passions. Oh, wait.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why not? Makes as much sense as the people of LA, San Fran, Chicago, NYC and Dallas deciding. I mean look beyond politics but just day to day life. People in those cities have little need for a conibear trap, yet can they be rather useful around here for coyotes and bobcats. Same argument for firearms.


The folks in LA, San Fran, Chicago and NYC voted for both Trump and Clinton! Why shouldn’t everyone’s vote count?

I’m not suggesting that we scrap the Electoral College by any means. But the Framers LEFT THE APPORTIONMENT to the STATES! The States have given it over to the two Parties that keep us in this bull# divide and conquer mode.

Let the People speak. 4.5 million Trump voters in California were disenfranchised arguably many from the same RURAL areas you guys keep worrying about? How can you guys be in favor of that???
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join