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.

 

Abolish The Electoral College System

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Here you go folks [EDIT] & another mutual petition (just discovered.)

With all of the attention on the web focused on the White House websites new petition feature, we may as well make use of it.

The point is not that they will be 'forced' to make legislation changes based on these petitions, but I'm confident that large numbers will make the Federal big wigs reconsider their position.

Have at it, and sign the other open petitions available on that site.

Lets give them some big numbers.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Scarcer because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey

A candidate would only need 51% of these nine states to win the presidential election. See the problem here? It's not complicated. This is the very reason we have an electoral college. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind destroying the electoral college. Is it ignorance or is it for political reasons?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I proved in school back in 6th grade civics class that Candidate A could get twice the votes of Candidate B and still lose. This is not right. The whole system is designed to be rigged. It is a way to rig an election and still be legal about it. It needs to be away with.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The ignorant do not understand the electoral college. It provides a more equal representation. After all, we are not a true democracy (thank God), we are a Representative Republic.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
The ignorant do not understand the electoral college. It provides a more equal representation. After all, we are not a true democracy (thank God), we are a Representative Republic.


"equal representation" you say? Do a little math. Take the state population and divide it by the Electoral Votes.

Here is just the first 2
503353 people equal 1 vote in Alabama
218478 people equal 1 vote in Alaska
Are you trying to say that 503353 is equal to 218478?

States 2004 Population 2004 Electoral Votes
Alabama 4,530,182=9
Alaska 655,435=3
Arizona 5,743,834=10
Arkansas 2,752,629=6
California 35,893,799=55
Colorado 4,601,403=9
Connecticut 3,503,604=7
Delaware 830,364=3
Dist. of Columbia 553,523 =3
Florida 17,397,161=27
Georgia 8,829,383 =15
Hawaii 1,262,840 =4
Idaho 1,393,262 =4
Illinois 12,713,634= 21
Indiana 6,237,569 =11
Iowa 2,954,451= 7
Kansas 2,735,502 =6
Kentucky 4,145,922 =8
Louisiana 4,515,770= 9
Maine 1,317,253 =4
Maryland 5,558,058 =10
Massachusetts 6,416,505 =12
Michigan 10,112,620 =17
Minnesota 5,100,958 =10
Mississippi 2,902,966 =6
Missouri 5,754,618 =11
Montana 926,865 =3
Nebraska 1,747,214 =5
Nevada 2,334,771 5 117%
New Hampshire 1,299,500 =4
New Jersey 8,698,879 =15
New Mexico 1,903,289 =5
New York 19,227,088 =31
North Carolina 8,541,221 =15
North Dakota 634,366 =3
Ohio 11,459,011= 20
Oklahoma 3,523,553= 7
Oregon 3,594,586= 7
Pennsylvania 12,406,292= 21
Rhode Island 1,080,632 =4
South Carolina 4,198,068= 8
South Dakota 770,883 =3
Tennessee 5,900,962 =11
Texas 22,490,022 =34
Utah 2,389,039 =5
Vermont 621,394 =3
Virginia 7,459,827 =13
Washington 6,203,788 =11
West Virginia 1,815,354 =5
Wisconsin 5,509,026 =10
Wyoming 506,529 =3

This data came from archive.fairvote.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey

A candidate would only need 51% of these nine states to win the presidential election. See the problem here? It's not complicated. This is the very reason we have an electoral college. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind destroying the electoral college. Is it ignorance or is it for political reasons?

Why can't we elect a candidate via popular vote?

I could understand when communication and modern technology were limited. Many voters in the 1800's and earlier never heard a candidate speak nor got a chance to learn anything about them that wasn't in the newspaper.

But in this day and age all we would have to do to be fair is ensure that every voter had internet access and then provide a website with links to the candidates. With equal space and links per candidate just to be fair. Perhaps the most popular parties could be at the top of the page and the least popular ones like communism toward the bottom. (Hint: every citizen in america has the option of internet access at their local library.)

I think this system is viable and it does not require the electoral college.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey

A candidate would only need 51% of these nine states to win the presidential election. See the problem here? It's not complicated. This is the very reason we have an electoral college. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind destroying the electoral college. Is it ignorance or is it for political reasons?


"only" that huh? lol.. how hard could that be?

i mean, what candidate from hell wouldnt be able to get a majority in california new york and texas?


now, the reasoning that i have yet to understand, is that if the electoral college is so good for everyone, then why do they hide it? why dont they post the results of it on tv instead of the popular vote? why arent they showing us who the people involved are, why dont the candidates spend their time trying to win them over?

and hell, why do they make us all waste our time on a fake popular vote that has no power to elect a damn thing? why pretend we have power, why pretend we have a choice?
edit on 23-9-2011 by BohemianBrim because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2

log in

join