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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's better to just break states up and make more states like california wants to do I guess.... heck, upstate new Yorkers have wanted to break away from the city and Albany for as long as I can remember.
Lol.. they think that we are just fuming over an election loss, calling us dumb and illogical...
But they haven't thought it through. Most of those red states really dont have that many delegates to begin with, and they are worried about losing some of those few precious few.. they are neglecting to notice the large amount of red that is in those blue states and how many delegates they could get from them.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

No.

We're very well aware of it. We know most of those states vote red. Why on earth do you think we find the idea of a national votes system so disturbing? Most of the rural areas of those states are drowned out by the popular vote systems that elect state senators and congressional representatives and governors at the state level.

So those red minorities are endlessly governed by voices not their own in ways they would not prefer.

We're smart enough to see how that would happen at a national level without the leveling the EC provides us.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
The impeachment snip show is reason enough to keep the EC.

Take a good look at mob rule in action.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
There is not a single US state that “Votes red” or “votes blue.”

Many of them are usually within a couple of percentage points.

Those that aren’t are usually within 10 points, with the most extreme difference being around 20 points.

So stop it. Just stop it. It’s a lie that you’re repeating if you don’t recognize it and if you do, well, you’re lying.

California gets crap for being “liberal and Blue” yet, the split for Clinton-Trump was 8.8M to 4.5 M. Basically 60/30. 30 points.

New York? Oh look at that 60/38% 22 points difference.

Texas? 52/43% for Trump/Clinton. 8 points difference.

Alabama. Do you get any more “Red” than Alabama? 62/34 % Trump. 28 points different.

But in every State Americans are a MIX. The very reason we have a Republic rather than a Democracy is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

So stop with the “Red State/Blue State” crap. They’re all shades of purple.

Source
edit on 19-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Source



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's better to just break states up and make more states like california wants to do I guess.... heck, upstate new Yorkers have wanted to break away from the city and Albany for as long as I can remember.


I can't help but imagine the natural consequence of that would be thousands of states, where the country becomes one massive bizarre gerrymandered map. I am not sure legitimizing transient divisions in this country makes sense. The south was once Democrat, the north Republican to say nothing about the evolving politics and culture in each community.
It could be reasonably argued from historical records and texts that President Lincoln's primary impetus for fighting the Civil War was not to abolish slavery but to preserve the union, abolishing slavery was what was necessary to do that in his view.



Some interesting facts:




Five times a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election. Andrew Jackson in 1824 (to John Quincy Adams); Samuel Tilden in 1876 (to Rutherford B. Hayes); Grover Cleveland in 1888 (to Benjamin Harrison); Al Gore in 2000 (to George W. Bush); Hillary Clinton in 2016 (to Donald J. Trump).

In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.

Only two Presidential elections (1800 and 1824) have been decided in the House.

Though not officially a contingent election, in 1876, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana submitted certificates of elections for both candidates. A bipartisan commission of Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, reviewed the ballots and awarded all three state’s electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio, who won the presidency by a single electoral vote.


history.house.gov...




The House Decides Again: 1825
Since the 12th Amendment, one other presidential election has come to the House.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson of Tennessee won a plurality of the national popular vote and 99 votes in the Electoral College—32 short of a majority. John Quincy Adams was runner-up with 85, and Treasury Secretary William Crawford had 41.

Speaker of the House Henry Clay had 37 and expected to use his influence in the House to win election.

But the 12th Amendment required the House to consider only the top-three vote-getters when no one commands an overall majority. The House chose Adams over Jackson




The contested 1876 presidential election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden of New York was the last to require congressional intervention.

Tilden won the popular vote and the electoral count. But Republicans challenged the results in three Southern states, which submitted certificates of election for both candidates. While the Constitution requires the House and Senate to formally count the certificates of election in joint session, it is silent on what Congress should do to resolve disputes.

In January 1877, Congress established the Federal Electoral Commission to investigate the disputed Electoral College ballots. The bipartisan commission, which included Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, voted along party lines to award all the contested ballots to Hayes—securing the presidency for him by a single electoral vote. The Commission’s controversial results did not spark the violence in the post-Civil War South that some had feared largely because Republicans had struck a compromise with Southern Democrats to remove federal soldiers from the South and end Reconstruction in the event of a Hayes victory.

history.house.gov...



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus

... Sounds identical to the suggestion that we elect the President by counting counties ...

Next will be something like "well, the only real Americans voted for Trump, so we can ignore the rest" ....




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
And almost half the country is right on board....



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodworth
And almost half the country is right on board....


Divide et impera.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
No not racist. They vote for who their constituants vote for. Thats why we are a republic and not a Democracy.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: texasyeti
No not racist. They vote for who their constituants vote for. Thats why we are a republic and not a Democracy.


Except they don’t vote for who their constituents vote for, they vote for the candidate of the winning party, winner take all.

The voters of the losing party are disenfranchised. It’s time for that to stop.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like your major complaint is that someone loses. Interesting this discussion never comes up about how terrible losing is when a Democrat wins... probably because your masters pulling the strings don't tell you it is bad then.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: texasyeti
No not racist. They vote for who their constituants vote for. Thats why we are a republic and not a Democracy.


Except they don’t vote for who their constituents vote for, they vote for the candidate of the winning party, winner take all.

The voters of the losing party are disenfranchised. It’s time for that to stop.


What needs to stop is your misuse of the term 'disenfranchised.'



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like your major complaint is that someone loses. Interesting this discussion never comes up about how terrible losing is when a Democrat wins... probably because your masters pulling the strings don't tell you it is bad then.

TheRedneck


That's what I was thinking.

It sounds like his definition of "disenfranchised" is simply on the losing end of this or that election. For most of us, it means rendered unable to vote at all through some gimmick, law, or other.

And while it's a noble goal to make sure that everyone who votes gets exactly what they think they are voting for, it's also wildly impossible. Not even those of us who end up on the winning side of an election get everything we think we're voting for. We cast votes on people, and people have strange ways of doing their own thing rather than exactly what you want them to do.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope. The minority has their votes erased.

Try again.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What I find amazing is that the exact same people who cry about "disenfranchisement" of voters are then calling for and pulling for the complete disenfranchisement of almost half the country by removal of the person elected to office.

Are there gerrymandered districts that skew the representation of House Representatives? Sure, on both sides. Do they need to be corrected? Yes, and we can do that easily after the upcoming 2020 census. But we won't, because the argument is not about actually disenfranchisement, but about those who toe the Democrat narrative of today wanting to "win" at any cost.

Our very existence as the country we all know hinges on one and only one single philosophy: free and fair elections. The people control the government, not the other way around. But now, when the people don't do as the government wants, we realize that maybe it's not about the people controlling the government. It's rather about the government controlling the people by letting them think they are in control... but only as long as they do what the government wants.

Try to do something the government doesn't like, and suddenly the entire election process is called into question and the government attempts to override the will of the public. If there's anything more telling than that who the real masters are, I don't know what it would be.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Hey I don't want to take you away from the rest of the gang, but I'm right here. You don't have to muse about what you think another poster thinks about what I think.

I use disenfranchised to mean votes taken away which is exactly what happens to the "losing" party in first past the post.

The votes of the minority party in any given election are negated, made of no value, have no effect, etc.

Keep trying to work around the issue, but please don't try such sophomoric tactics. Make an argument.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Dramatic nonsense to the side, to argue against impeachment is to argue against the Constitution.

To argue that a power explicitly given to one Branch to address the overreach of another by the Founders smacks of disloyalty at best.

A bit clumsy as well after all the hue and cry against the dangers of the popular vote to imply that the President was elected by the People ... No?

/shrug



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Impeachment is a tool.

Now we used to assume that the tool would be used by learned men and women.

Now we have door-knob humping retards utilizing a tool better suited for people with an IQ above room temperature.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't disagree in essence but impeachment itself is not disenfranchisement but is a Constitutional remedy.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   
My argument is really very direct, despite attempts to misrepresent it:

Our Electoral College system is established in our Constitution for the election of our President every four years, which is the only nationally elected office. The Constittuion specfies the number of Electors each state will have, which is exactly the same as the States Congressional representation (2 Senators and Representatives based on population). Washington DC is additionally given 3 Electors.

The Constittuion leaves the matter of the selection of Electors to the several States. 48 of the States use a first past the post system awarding the States Electors in full to the winner of the popular vote in that State. However, the problem with this system is that it disenfranchises those voters whose Candidates didn’t come in first in the State.

I am saying that it is unfair to my mind that say in California in 2016, 4.5 million Trump voters have no voice in the Electors because of the winner take all system.

The matter is left to the States to decide. The States could decide to go with another system of assigning Electors.

As such, it seems to me that a far more equitable system would be to give the two Electors each State has to the Candidate with the highest number of popular votes, and then divide the remaining Electors fairly between the Candidates based on their popular vote totals.

It is obvious that the claims that the EC somehow protects the interests of smaller states is absurd and easily disproven.

No American should be deprived of representation in the Electoral College by having their votes ignored.

That is my argument.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join