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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It would be county by county regardless. If a candidate for national office carries 1800 of the 3000 counties and the other person carried only 1200 counties there would be a difference of 600 counties nation wide. This would eliminate the winner takes all for a state electoral points. They would count counties not the population of a state so if you took 60 percent of the counties you get those and only those counties not the whole state.
Clinton counties carried 489
Trump counties carried 2623
S


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




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

I want to crawl inside your head, and EAT MY WAY OUT!


edit on 17-11-2019 by Zelun because: context



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: Gryphon66

It would be county by county regardless. If a candidate for national office carries 1800 of the 3000 counties and the other person carried only 1200 counties there would be a difference of 600 counties nation wide. This would eliminate the winner takes all for a state electoral points. They would count counties not the population of a state so if you took 60 percent of the counties you get those and only those counties not the whole state.
Clinton counties carried 489
Trump counties carried 2623
S



Ah, so you're not interested in voter equity as you claimed.

There's no reason to separate by County in a national election, literally no reason, no rationale, no precedent.

State Elections aren’t even by County, why in the world would we do that for a national election?

Ridiculous.
edit on 17-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: Gryphon66

It would be county by county regardless. If a candidate for national office carries 1800 of the 3000 counties and the other person carried only 1200 counties there would be a difference of 600 counties nation wide. This would eliminate the winner takes all for a state electoral points. They would count counties not the population of a state so if you took 60 percent of the counties you get those and only those counties not the whole state.
Clinton counties carried 489
Trump counties carried 2623
S



Ah, so you're not interested in voter equity as you claimed.

There's no reason to separate by County in a national election, literally no reason, no rationale, no equity.

Never happened never will.

This is the problem with right-partisans ... they're not interested in fairness, they're interested in winning.


How are large urban areas caring a whole state fair? Here's an example of your fairness, you have a cow and there are three people voting on what happens to that cow. You vote to eat the whole cow the other two vote to take the cow and eat it themselves It was all fair everyone voted any you lost



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Trump in 2020 will be the first time I've voted FOR some one since 1980.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: Gryphon66

It would be county by county regardless. If a candidate for national office carries 1800 of the 3000 counties and the other person carried only 1200 counties there would be a difference of 600 counties nation wide. This would eliminate the winner takes all for a state electoral points. They would count counties not the population of a state so if you took 60 percent of the counties you get those and only those counties not the whole state.
Clinton counties carried 489
Trump counties carried 2623
S



Ah, so you're not interested in voter equity as you claimed.

There's no reason to separate by County in a national election, literally no reason, no rationale, no precedent.

State Elections aren’t even by County, why in the world would we do that for a national election?

Ridiculous.

The vote IS counted by county first in State and Federal elections.
Then , combined into their respective Districts.
And , each district is represented by an electoral vote.
One they can choose to cast any way they should so choose.

Remember the Bush/Gore hanging chads that was contested by Gore in 4 counties in Florida ?

Ridiculous.

edit on 11/17/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

The county I grew up in had half as many people than the county next to it. How would it be fair for the two counties to have equal representation? The areas would have to be mapped out to at least attempt to have an equal number of people, preferably without the insane gerrymandering that infects the house voting. And, the delegates would vote according to the wishes of their area instead of one party take all. While NY City might have a few delegates representing it, in upstate and western NY you would have districts with mainly smaller communities and rural areas. It was really rather senseless to vote for the president when I lived in NY. I always knew the dems would take the state, they always do. But if those communities like the one i was living in could hold our delegate accountable for how our community voted, it would have made things so much more interesting.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
According to Wilfred Codrington III, who wrote this piece for the Atlantic Star:

www.theatlantic.com...


Critics of the Electoral College are right to denounce it for handing victory to the loser of the popular vote twice in the past two decades. They are also correct to point out that it distorts our politics, including by encouraging presidential campaigns to concentrate their efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large. But the disempowerment of black voters needs to be added to that list of concerns, because it is core to what the Electoral College is and what it always has been.



The race-consciousness establishment—and retention—of the Electoral College has supported an entitlement program that our 21st-century democracy cannot justify. If people truly want ours to be a race-blind politics, they can start by plucking that strange, low-hanging fruit from the Constitution.


Here is a bio of the author:

www.brennancenter.org...

There you have it....the Electoral College is racist and should be abolished.

Agree or disagree? Personally, I think it's pure poppycock

Discuss.


Anything that keeps a particular minority in power, despite all attempts at democracy, has to be a type of bigotry. If that minority are a particular ethnic group, then you could argue that it is racist in effect.

I think, however, that the US has just had Obama as President, elected under the EC system, which sort of dilutes that as an accusation.

Perhaps the EC system is sexist?




posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

I suggested that the votes be distributed fairly. If Trump gets all the votes, he gets all the Electors.

You’re just repeating nonsense, really. IF the vote is proportional by state, with no one’s votes not counted, that’s as fair as the system can possibly be.

You’re repeating examples you don’t comprehend, sadly. Best.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Votes are tallied by Counties, not credited by Counties.

Counties do not count as a unit, they count as a number of individual votes.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

If anything, it was elitist. They didnt trust your average peon to have the intellect to make a wise decision but wanted the peons to feel they were playing their part. So, they gave the peons a selection of fine upstanding citizens (read wealthy) from their area to vote for to be their representative and then that representative, that fine upstanding (wealthy) representative would travel to dc to rub shoulders with other fine upstanding (wealthy) citizens and the candidates, feast on steak and lobster, wheel and deal, bribe and be bribed, and finally use their superior mental abilities to choose who the best candidate to represent them....or I mean the peons back home..



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: chr0naut

If anything, it was elitist. They didnt trust your average peon to have the intellect to make a wise decision but wanted the peons to feel they were playing their part. So, they gave the peons a selection of fine upstanding citizens (read wealthy) from their area to vote for to be their representative and then that representative, that fine upstanding (wealthy) representative would travel to dc to rub shoulders with other fine upstanding (wealthy) citizens and the candidates, feast on steak and lobster, wheel and deal, bribe and be bribed, and finally use their superior mental abilities to choose who the best candidate to represent them....or I mean the peons back home..


Yes, but that is assuming that those who are wealthy, are cleverer.

Clearly that has not been the case.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, they assumed, and they were the ones with the power, and the wealth so they were the ones who got to write the rulebook. As much as things change, some things remain the same.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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

That is not fair.


In the last election 2016, 8.8 million CA residents (we assume residents, anyway) voted for Clinton. 4.5 million of those votes negated the Trump votes, giving a clear 4.3 million vote majority to Clinton and awarding her those full 55 Electors.

That's the rules, and so far as we can tell they were fairly cast.

What would *not be fair* would be if those spare 4.3 million Clinton votes from CA negated the Trump votes in Wyoming, Kansas, Florida, etc. Clinton won California... I mean she *really* won that State. Good for her. But the CA support of Clinton does not mean that Nevada, Arizona, and other regions around California had the same concerns and opinions and should not be held to their standards, and other States even further away like Missouri and Tennessee can cast their votes without being negated by population clusters like Los Angeles, or New York City if you want to swap locations.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


Point of order: they apportion their EV's by Congressional District, not by percentage.



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Wow, that’s a convoluted justification for first past the post eh?

I disagree.

There’s no reason to create the “negation” system that you’re trying to sell. Clinton only “won” California because that’s the way California defines “winning” because first past the post was the English tradition.

The claim that the current system “protects” votes in smaller states is absurd on its face. California has 55 votes, Wyoming has three under the current system ... so your claim is that with a margin as low as 1% in any state, almost half the voters IN THAT STATE should be disenfranchised and THAT somehow magically protects the interests of smaller States?

No. The Founders left the manner of each States Electors TO that State. This is obviously a recognition of State sovereignty. If a State decides FPTP is inequitable, that State changes it. The only thing the current system protects is the hegemony of the two-party ‘system”

I don’t agree with you. I won’t agree with you. No matter how hard you try to spin.
edit on 18-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The Gentleman is correct; I stand corrected.

(See how easy that is, Adam?)

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   
How about just a good old fashioned knife fight to the death? Put it on PPV and pay down the National Debt a little bit.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
How about just a good old fashioned knife fight to the death? Put it on PPV and pay down the National Debt a little bit.


I'm curious to how California would look should an electoral college system be applied instead of popular vote...



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   
The Senate is the body that serves as “the equalizer” between large states and small states.

In the Senate, Wyoming has two votes. California has two votes. 2=2. Parity.

The Electoral College does not serve as an equalizer between large and small states.

In the EC, Wyoming has three votes. California has 55 votes. 3 to 55. Inequity.

First Past the Post/Winner Take All is a system that keeps the two parties in power..

The Framers were aware of parties and political factionalism. They DIDN’T codify it in the Constitution.

There’s a reason for that.
edit on 18-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Format




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join