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.
Total 50,456,002 47.87% 50,999,897 48.38% 2,882,955 2.74% 271 266
Originally posted by zerotime
Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count. The Electoral College idea was brilliant. It means that a handful of large US cities could not decide an election result that would affect every state in the USA. The needs of people in Kansas will be different from the needs of people living in California or New York. Therefore each state is broken down by population and each state in the USA matters. Otherwise only a couple of the largest states would decide every election. A political figure would only have to campaign in about 5 US states - the rest would be meaningless.
A popular vote isn't going to make more citizens vote. Lazy is Lazy. There will always be some excuse for why a citizen does not vote.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]
Originally posted by Taledus
I registered to vote, like 1 time. I was running for Mayor of my local city and the current mayor at that time was as crooked as they get. I had overwhelming support from most of the big shots here, but found out they they just wanted to use me as a pawn for thier benefit...so I quicky dropped out of the race regardless of how much money they were wanting to invest in my campaign (total $136,000). I never went back and re-registered to vote again.
While I do not know the aspects of everyone elses community, I was under the impression that local public officials were supposed to use thier power to benefit the communities, but here this is not so. Through threats, blackmail, violence, the rest of the officials are going to get who they want in office, and what they want them to do. With non-local voting, IMO this is just all done on a much larger scale.
So with my experience with other public officials I would have to say NO to voting again or the thought thereof.
Originally posted by cognoscente
I'd think the elections would be cleaner the larger the scale of the vote and the higher the position of the office. The more people that the winner of an election is accountable to, the larger the penalty (possibly career ending) for corruption. Doesn't it make sense that a mayor of a small city can get away with more than the President, who represents the entire country? I'm sure more people are interested in regional politics than local politics. The problem is that there aren't enough dedicated individuals to keep their local politicians in check, and I think that is where most of the corruption takes place.
[edit on 26-9-2008 by cognoscente]
Originally posted by zerotime
Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]
Originally posted by zooplancton
Originally posted by zerotime
Popular vote would mean that the average person's vote would not count.
[edit on 25-9-2008 by zerotime]
i guess i don't have a full understanding of the meaning of "popular vote".
EVERY SINGLE VOTE SHOULD COUNT. period. as the OP mentioned not to rant about the electoral college, as it is antiquated and built for rural communities that could not get to the voting stations years ago.
each vote should count as 1. each individual in their respective communities and states should have 1 vote that counts. that would be the true fair way to have an honest election.
rigged machines is a whole other level of disgust.
(i do not vote as i do not believe in this system as it currently is)