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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

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.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

A remedy for what? What is the disease that needs remedied? That your side lost?

That's not a disease and does not require a remedy... nor does the Constitution require impeachment. There have been 44 previous Presidents before this one; are you saying Congress had a Constitutional duty to impeach all of them?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The Constittuion leaves the matter of the selection of Electors to the several States.

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.

So you admit your argument is opposed to the Constitution?

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

A remedy for what? What is the disease that needs remedied? That your side lost?

That's not a disease and does not require a remedy... nor does the Constitution require impeachment. There have been 44 previous Presidents before this one; are you saying Congress had a Constitutional duty to impeach all of them?

TheRedneck


Why do you insist on repeatedly attempting to misrepresent what I am saying? I am arguing for ALL VOTES to count.

This sort of thing I would have thought is beneath you. Apparently not.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I would say rather that you are the one who favors trampling the Constitution when “your side” isn’t getting what it wants. You want a dishonest, divisive nincompoop to be protected from Constitutional remedy, merely because your own personal wants and needs might be disappointed.

I’m arguing for the States to reconsider their positions for the reasons I’ve outlined.

Further, I will not bicker with you. Bring an worthwhile argument or be ignored.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I got what I want... what I voted for: President Donald John Trump. You appear to be arguing that someone should force the states to enact legislation to chose electors according to your opinion. As it is right now, the Constitution is intact: the states are allowed to choose their electors as they choose as per the Constitution, and a legitimately elected President is in office.

Your argument is in direct opposition to the Constitution. You argue that there is some sort of requirement to impeach, and that the states should be forced to change how they chose electors. Neither of those positions pass Constitutional muster.

I also state that you, sir, are intelligent enough to know this, and your partisanship is showing clear as day. You are simply trying (unsuccessfully) to cover that partisan bias with some cockamamie story about being against both parties. I ain't buying it, hoss. That dog don't hunt. Ignore me all you want; it simply means logic, reason, and I have more in common.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am not arguing that someone should force the States to do anything. Perhaps you should read what I say rather than what you think I’m saying because of prejudice.

I did not argue that there is a requirement to impeach. Again, you seem to be intentionally misrepresenting what I’ve very clearly said on multiple occasions.

How is it partisan to argue that Trumps voters should have their voice heard as well as Clinton voters? Calling that partisan is patently absurd and further, given that you choose to post dishonestly I believe we are done.

I have no need to respond to blatant and knowing lies. Thanks for the conversation.



edit on 19-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Removed redundant sentence.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I am not arguing that someone should force the States to do anything.

And yet, every post you have made in this thread is preaching against how the states choose electors. Exactly what is your point, if not that the states should be required to abide by a particular method of choosing electors that you subscribe to?

Let me put it in metaphor: Mr. Jones next door plays loud music after 10:00. I say he shouldn't be playing loud music after 10:00 because it's not fair to me to lose sleep listening to it. The remedy is what? Complain? No, the remedy is to pass a law that says one cannot play loud music after 10:00.

Oh, but you didn't ask for the law to be passed, right? All you did was keep complaining until someone else passed it to shut you up. Not your fault... in a pig's eye.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether you propose a law (or in this case a Constitutional Amendment) or not; your continual insistence that the other states are not paying 'fair' in your mind is the impetus and the only solution is... a Constitutional Amendment.


I did not argue that there is a requirement to impeach.

You have said that Congress should take the Constitutional remedy to impeach Trump... an act that by definition disenfranchises every voter who helped elect him to office... without any impeachable offense being proved. Have you even watched the impeachment proceedings? As of today, all 5 witnesses called by the Democrats have been asked one simple question: do you have any knowledge of any action that in your mind would be impeachable undertaken by the President? In all 5 cases, the answer was "no."

Your 'remedy" has no associated illness to remedy, therefore the only logical conclusion is that no wrongdoing is required by your argument to impeach, and therefore impeachment is a remedy that applies to every President.

I would imagine your honest response would be "only if they're not Democrats," but I don't expect honesty.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You’re pointing right at my argument. First past the post does two things: disenfranchises the minority party voters in our only national election and keeps the obnoxious two-party system in power, both of which I am standing against.

The parties’ intention is to keep us focused on petty squabbles while they “trade power”every decade or so. In reality they are always in power.
edit on 19-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:20 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.


Depopulate LA and NY by about 90% and you can get rid of the electoral college..lol

Seriously, the DEMS have been winging about the Electoral College since Trump won. But here's a good hypothetical for ya'll…..

If the two most heavily populated regions in the US were 95% Republican / Conservative and someone suggested removing the electoral college, what then, would be the dems position on the matter..?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's not up to the witnesses to say weather or not an action or actions are impeachable or a crime. That decision is up to congress to decide. The witnesses are there to describe what they witnessed.
No one is debating that the president won the election and is therefore the president. But the constitution gives the congress the power to remove him from that seat if they feel his actions warrant such a move.
Nixon was rightfully elected also, but he opted to resign when it became evident that they were gonna move to remove him.
And, some republicans, along with some dems, thought a lie and a red dress was reason enough to impeach clinton.

Me thinks the republicans whine too much.

And, pray tell, just how the heck is a discussion about the electoral college on ATS forcing states to do anything? What happened to freedom of speech that the dems cant express their views without being accused of forcing laws into existence? It's a stupid thread on an internet forum for crying out loud! The only thing that is at risk is maybe a couple of readers might actually be convinced that it might be something worth considering.
Just words on you computer screen for you to accept or reject. If enough find they have worth, they might be carried forward and expand the conversation to other avenues. That's a far cry from forcing anything. Just like your buddies over on the other thread saying the liberals tried to poison trump and promoting their civil war wet dreams isnt forcing any unhinged loons into picking up their gun and go liberal hunting!



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironclad1964

I grew up in central ny and spent many of my adult years there. Some years I favored the dem candidate, other years I favored the republican. It didnt seem to matter since I knew that at the end of the day, the state, and all its electorates would go to the dems.
I dont think that anyone could predict what would happen if the states delegates were distributed proportionately to the actual vote since I think there is a significant number that feel the same way. Maybe more would be more interested in the election process and more apt to vote.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


It's not up to the witnesses to say weather or not an action or actions are impeachable or a crime. That decision is up to congress to decide.

It is also incumbent upon that House of Representatives to conduct those hearings in a fair and impartial way. That is not happening, in any way, shape, form or fashion. It is also incumbent upon the House of Representatives to not make up their own "facts." That is happening.


And, some republicans, along with some dems, thought a lie and a red dress was reason enough to impeach clinton.

Which I disagreed with, just as I disagree with this witch hunt. And, I might add, I didn't support Clinton. I did support those who voted for him, who, it seems, now refuse to return that support.


What happened to freedom of speech that the dems cant express their views without being accused of forcing laws into existence? It's a stupid thread on an internet forum for crying out loud!

Therein lies your issue: it's not about freedom of speech "for the dems." I do not support freedom of speech "for the dems." I only support freedom of speech for everyone. Leave out one single person and I oppose you.

As for it being a "stupid thread on a message board," you seem to be much more emotionally involved than I. I have given my views and called out the inconsistency (and outright attempts at projection, which I consider "lies") in this thread. I suppose that is irrelevant, though, because I am not a "dem." Well, here's an interesting bit of trivia for you: I am not a Republican either. I am, always have been, and always will be an Independent. As such, I will call things as i see them, not as how some guy on TV tells me to see them.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ironclad1964

To be clear, I am not arguing for the dissolution of the Electoral College. That would be wrong and unconstitutional.

What I am arguing for is that the first past the post system of assigning Electors should be changed in order to empower all voters with representation for their votes in terms of the assignment of Electors.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
We cant win
Lets change the rules

Perhaps simply change your platforms that people dislike?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
We cant win
Lets change the rules

Perhaps simply change your platforms that people dislike?



I’m not a Democrat.

Also, the rules that I am suggesting we change would benefit Republicans and Democrats AND minority party candidates and voters. The current system cheats the minority parties; I am recommending a equitable solution.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ironclad1964

To be clear, I am not arguing for the dissolution of the Electoral College. That would be wrong and unconstitutional.

What I am arguing for is that the first past the post system of assigning Electors should be changed in order to empower all voters with representation for their votes in terms of the assignment of Electors.


What you are arguing is changing out one tally of voting power for another.

We'd still end up with one candidate having more votes than another and that one candidate still winning, which by your flawed argument ends up in a disenfranchised minority. (Which they aren't, no matter how many times you repeat the flawed argument.)

And then of course the slippery slope would lead to people saying, "Why bother with the EC when we can just tally up the Popular Vote?" We have the EC to avoid simple popularity contests, which is basically what you are advocating for.

It's a bad idea and I still think you are trying to sound out a not-so-clever twist on abolishing the EC.
edit on 19-11-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you want participation trophies in elections?

Please explain how having a winner in any election doesn't disenfranchise the losers in the game by any system you care to construct. After all, according to you simply losing disenfranchises you because you're automatically part of the minority that has no representation thanks to the vote.

If I didn't vote for the winning guy/gal, then I am disenfranchised no matter how you shake it as per your worldview no matter which side of the bed my politics put me on, where I live or anything else. System makes no difference. All that matters is that the person I voted for isn't the one in power at the end of the day. No system tweaks will change that, not even a full-on swap to popular vote.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The argument isn’t flawed because you think so either, or because you keep saying so.

It’s an argument, a claim, an idea, that I have clearly stated, backed up with evidence, and gave good reasons for.

Yes, the end result is the Electors in the College would be assigned and one would have more votes, and yes, one candidate would win.

My suggestion, however, doesn’t disenfranchise any voter simply because every vote counts toward an award of Electors.

You’re going to make a slippery slope argument? LOL. At the end of the line, eh. Except for your claim that I’m asking for abolishing the Electoral College when I am quite obviously not. You don’t like the idea, therefore, it’s bad.

That you think it’s a bad idea for no reason convinces me that it’s a good idea, so thanks for repeating your input over and over and over.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can't even use the term disenfranchise correctly, and you think you have presented evidence and reasons?

...

Good night, gryph.




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join