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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
There is not and never has been a "popular vote" for the American President.

When anyone tells you "Hillary won the popular vote" - including Hilary herself, they're either lying or ignorant of the process.


There is a "Popular Vote" and has always been one.

It has never determined who is elected to be a US President, although it usually correlates.

It is a number relevant to political pundits and political analysts.

I view with skepticism any argument that looks to erase basic factual talking points from the discussion.



Wow, you said that with way more respect/tact than I could have brought....




posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck


I have watched you, personally, do this exact thing. So don't give me this lecture. The end of the two party system was at your fingertips, but you rejected it for your masters.



Many people do not view President Trump as the "end of the two party system", but rather the Apex of it. Unabashedly corrupt, dishonest and self serving. In that context the choices left are to defend or condemn a composite of the worst of our politics promoted to the highest office. The two party system and it's fiercely partisan divisions represents President Trump's greatest defensive tool. His entire presidency has been exploiting the two party system to politically threaten or destroy any Republican that dares to defy him, something he could only do in a binary two party system.

Edit to add: This is not to say that a Trump Presidency has been all good or all bad for the country. That can be debated, but viewing him as someone outside the two party system or as somehow not corrupted by it is not true IMO. He benefits from it enormously.







edit on 18-11-2019 by Caractacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: TheRedneck


I have watched you, personally, do this exact thing. So don't give me this lecture. The end of the two party system was at your fingertips, but you rejected it for your masters.



Many people do not view President Trump as the "end of the two party system", but rather the Apex of it. Unabashedly corrupt, dishonest and self serving. In that context the choices left are to defend or condemn a composite of the worst of our politics promoted to the highest office. The two party system and it's fiercely partisan divisions represents President Trump's greatest defensive tool. His entire presidency has been exploiting the two party system to politically threaten or destroy any Republican that dares to defy him, something he could only do in a binary two party system.

Edit to add: This is not to say that a Trump Presidency has been all good or all bad for the country. That can be debated, but viewing him as someone outside the two party system or as somehow not corrupted by it is not true IMO. He benefits from it enormously.


I wish I had more stars to give.

Regarding Trump being good/bad for the country; I can't help but be reminded of what Zen Master would say.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreenGunther
If it’s racist, how did America get a black president for 2 terms?


Racists voted for him.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: GreenGunther
If it’s racist, how did America get a black president for 2 terms?


Racists voted for him.


I think this was actually perhaps more cogent that you intended.

Apropos to your comment, I imagine something similar to the movie 'Get Out'...



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I mean ALOT by it.

Open borders. CLEARLY RACIST. When it only means people from Mexico and down south. Anyone else doesn't rate for the 'Murican dream.

Gun Control Created as racial discrimination and still enforced as.

Pulling 'White privilege' out of their rears and making people pay to get degrees in that snip.

Created the hypenated Americanism's and perpetuating segregation.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus

I’m not sure if folks are aware of the facts or not, but the primary/caucus system coupled with FPTP in the Electoral College is what sustains the two-party system. Neither are in the Constitution.

Through the Tenth Amendment, the States make these decisions, which are in turn handed over to the Republicrat party. It’s amazing to me that the standard patter that has been provided for them is automatically parroted by even really intelligent folks ... that in some mystical way, the EC keeps the smaller states on parity with the large States.

Simple math shows that’s not true.

Great post, btw!

edit on 18-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Hey RickinVa: Worth discussion, for sure. However, it may be important to recognize how the electoral college is formed or formatted. Gerrymandering. Taking the census and redrawing populous taken from it, to allocate a certain amount of representatives of that electoral college. Futzing around with voting rights, etc. informs gerrymandering to redraw congressional districts and the amount of representatives for each district that make up that electoral college. It's a metaphor for paying to play to get your kid into a college. LOL.
regards,
tetra



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So do you support disenfranchising Trump voters in every Blue State?


It's a lovely spin you are attempting here, by seeming to appear sympathetic to conservatives in blue states.

Anyway.

Winning an election by definition means there are losers. So long as the election is fair and the ballots counted correctly, the person with the most votes wins and the other candidates need to try harder next time.
edit on 18-11-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So do you support disenfranchising Trump voters in every Blue State?


It's a lovely spin you are attempting here, by seeming to appear sympathetic to conservatives in blue states.

Anyway.

Winning an election by definition means there are losers. So long as the election is fair and the ballots counted correctly, the person with the most votes wins and the other candidates need to try harder next time.


Hey there:



ger·ry·man·der
/ˈjerēˌmandər/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: gerrymandering
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.
"a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"


The simple fact the word exists (just like the word conspiracy) means it happens. That's why there's a word to define such happenings. What this truly means is behind the election "results," a lot happens to pre determine such results, which sort of nullifies the whole idea of a representative republic, and who wins and loses. In that scenario, we ALL lose.
regards,
tetra



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Hmmm, since gerrymandering involves the constant redrawing of congressional districts and not the redrawing of the actual states themselves, your point on this discussion is entirely moot. In order to attempt to gerrymander the presidential election in the way you seem to be suggesting, we would have to constantly redraw state lines in order to try to gain congressional advantage for one party or another.

Obviously, this does not happen. As it has been forever since the last West Virginia split off from its parent state.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tetra50

Hmmm, since gerrymandering involves the constant redrawing of congressional districts and not the redrawing of the actual states themselves, your point on this discussion is entirely moot. In order to attempt to gerrymander the presidential election in the way you seem to be suggesting, we would have to constantly redraw state lines in order to try to gain congressional advantage for one party or another.

Obviously, this does not happen. As it has been forever since the last West Virginia split off from its parent state.

Hey Ketsuko: If what you say is true, it wouldn't be a case taken to the Supreme Court. It's a little more complicated than that. It isn't so much about drawing state borders, as it is about the population in those areas, their ethnicities, class and political leanings. Not to mention, for various reasons, populations shift all the time. It has absolutely nothing to do with state borders, but the populations within districts.



Here are the most obscenely gerrymandered congressional districts in America
By Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 8:36 AM ET, Wed October 4, 2017
Will new test help prove gerrymandering?
Play Video
Will new test help prove gerrymandering? 01:55
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The decennial line-drawing process has always been a somewhat political endeavor
In most states, state legislators and the governor control the process
(CNN)The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on a case with massive political implications for both political parties: Is extreme partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional?

Here's CNN's Ariane de Vogue on the case:
"At issue are maps drawn in Wisconsin after the last census that Democrats say were drawn unconstitutionally to benefit Republicans. They argue the maps represent extreme partisan gerrymander and that they prevent fair and effective representation by diluting voters' influence and penalizing voters based on their political beliefs."
The Court's swing vote -- Justice Anthony Kennedy -- did little to tip his hand either way, according to de Vogue, a neutrality that will heighten the drama over the case between now and when the Court makes its opinion public early next year.
The decennial line-drawing process has always been a somewhat political endeavor. In most states, state legislators and the governor control the process. When one party controls the state House, state Senate and the governor's mansion, they have, historically, done everything they can to advantage their side and disadvantage their political opponents.
What's changed is that technology has transformed what was once a backroom freehand approximation of where the lines should be into a computer-driven, street-by-street parsing of people and votes.
And, with that increased precision has come the strategy -- employed by both parties -- to pack all of the voters for the other party into the smallest number of districts possible -- thereby giving them them a chance to win all of the non-packed districts.
Think of it this way: You are a Republican line-drawer. You have 25 Republican voters and 25 Democratic voters. You need to split those people up into five districts. Would you put five Democrats and five Republicans in each? That would create five swing seats -- not ideal for a party trying to maximize its gains. What if instead you put 25 Democrats in one district and zero Republicans in that same district? And then split the remaining 25 Republicans into the remaining four districts? You would lose the one 25-Democrat district for sure. But you'd have a major edge in the other four!
That's, obviously, an oversimplification. But broadly speaking, it's what Republicans, who largely controlled the redistricting process after the 2010 census, did in districts across the country. (To be clear: Democrats did the same thing when they had the chance.)
To pack as many of the opposing party into a single district, however,makes for some crazy-looking districts. These are known as gerrymanders -- much more on that term here -- in the political business. And here are three of the worst.
Maryland's 3rd district
Here's how the Almanac of American Politics describes this seat held by Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes: "The 3rd district of Maryland consists of three oddly disjointed pieces of geography that extend from the Inner Harbor area" in Baltimore. The district has been named America's most gerrymandered by The New Republic.
Pennyslvania's 7th district
The districts built around Philadelphia and its western suburbs are uniformly ugly. But, the 7th, represented by Rep. Pat Meehan (R), is the worst of the worst. In a feat of understatement, the Almanac says of this seat: "The unconventional shape of the 7th made it one of the most highlighted gerrymanders in post-2010 redistricting."
Texas' 33rd district
This district, currently held by Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey, stretches from southwestern Dallas all the way the northern suburbs of Fort Worth -- with a small land bridge in between. The district was drawn by a court to take in much of the Hispanic population in those areas; it is 67% Hispanic and 16% black. (The Texas map is currently in legal limbo with a particular focus on the 27th and 35th districts.)

[url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html

I strongly encourage you to look at the link, as it shows maps with the congressional districts within these states outlined.

I have more on this topic, and will present it shortly.
regards,
tetra



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Ketsuko: Worth watching and listening to, as well: Supreme Court case on Gerrymandering
Quoting the whole article would be taking up too much space, but this is another article that explains the rigging of congressional districts:
Brennan Center for Justice

Definitely worth the read, as it explains specifically how this is accomplished, and the use of technology to do so, amongst other....well, things.
Hope you'll give it a read.
regards,
tet
edit on 18-11-2019 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
And this article, as well, about voter suppression as a means of gerrymandering, also well worth the read:
apm.org
tet



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
The only time that redistricting has any impact on Presidential elections is after the Census when the number of districts are recalculated and the States gain or lose Electoral Votes.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus

The problem is that the complaints against Trump are the exact reason the two-party system exists. As it stands now, only the two main parties get government funding for their campaigns. Funding means the parties can pay for signage, advertisements, etc. to reach more people, which translates to more votes. It is simply not possible for a third party to break into politics without the aid of someone who is filthy wealthy, and even then it is nigh impossible. Remember Ross Perot?

So anyone trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works and dislodge the two-party system must use the two-party system to get into power. That makes him/her susceptible to attacks of partisanship from the other party, and with the media as dishonest as they are, means that a large percentage of people will buy that party line and ignore the only hope they have to get someone who is truly for the American people.

That's what is frustrating. People are trying to talk about how badly we need to break the two-party system, while simultaneously doing exactly what the two-party system wants and needs to survive and thrive. It's disingenuous and completely frustrating. They have created their own catch-22, and now sit there moaning about someone creating it.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You didn't answer the question, and you're pontificating about nothing.

Regardless, I am interested in all Americans who vote having their vote count, you are obviously not. You favor a system that does nothing for greater equity and in fact perpetuates the fake two party system.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

All votes count in each State per the Constitution.

🙂



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

All votes count in each State per the Constitution.

🙂


Did you have a specific part of the Constitution in mind to back up your statement?

Something like this:



Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


COTUS, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

Oddly, in 48 States and Washington DC, the manner is the popular vote disenfranchising every voter in the minority.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You didn't answer the question, and you're pontificating about nothing.


No, I'm just not playing your game. Losing an election is not disenfranchisement. Not being allowed to vote, or having your vote undervalued or stolen is disenfranchisement.



Regardless, I am interested in all Americans who vote having their vote count, you are obviously not. You favor a system that does nothing for greater equity and in fact perpetuates the fake two party system.


Regardless, you are spinning a false narrative about me then attacking that strawman.
edit on 19-11-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join