It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


McConnell warns of popular vote 'catastrophic outcome'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by cbvh27

This is a republic.

Not a democracy.

(I'd write more but I got distracted by something shiny)

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:01 AM
Here in Australia if you vote for the little guy, he is just forced to give it to one of the major parties anyway. It's like choosing someone to vote on your behalf.

At the end of the day, elections are for people who believe that the 2 major parties are not controlled by the same small group of rich men.

Elections only exist to fool people into thinking they have control over their government.

That way, they don't have to do anything you want them to, because when the people have enough they won't revolt, they'll just vote in the other party. Then they receive the same instructions.

And the cycle begins again...

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:21 AM
oh my.... this is a democracy means that popular vote is a democracy, not the US. Yes the US is a "republic"...

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by buster2010

So if I vote for Paul in Utah, but Obama got more votes in California, my vote wouldn't count?
Seems rather draconian to me.

Conversely, if I voted for Romney (in Utah) and someone voted for Obama in California, but the turnout was bigger in Utah, the Obama votes would not count?

People look at this as if it will only benefit the DNC, but if you looked at it as benefiting any political party over another, therm you might have people rethinking this.

Just imagine Bush manipulating the electoral college instead of Obama.

You seem to forget Bush did manipulate the electoral college. Remember Gore won the popular vote but Bush got the office because of the electoral college.

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:50 AM
Reading between the lines, I believe Mitch is afraid that the two party system is in danger, and that bothers him. The party machines do a good job of delivering the goods to their corporate masters.
Let's say it becomes clear that Ron Paul is the clear winner in the popular vote. They couldn't very well pull shenanigans and get their man/woman in, now could they? They couldn't pull a Harry Reid over on the entire country.

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:37 AM
I re-read ever post and I did not find any of the responders comments being a true reflection of the inability of critical thought, save one.

Stating that this won’t take effect until the proponents have 270 Electoral College votes “in the Bag” is the epitome of the inability of critical thought, of course it won’t, it can’t.

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by cbvh27
I actually favor a republic, because it's easy to convience 51% of a population of something stupid.

Like ... lets go for something absurd here ... amending the constitution to prohibit the sale of alcohol?

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by buster2010
You seem to forget Bush did manipulate the electoral college. Remember Gore won the popular vote but Bush got the office because of the electoral college.

You'd been replying to another member on this but I'd really like to note something where this topic is concerned. First, I have NO INTEREST in even touching on the Bush/Gore issue....even as a passing thing.

However, there IS a legiitimate issue here that is important to point out. The entire nature of a Representative Republic, as the United States was envisioned, chartered and built to be, is precisely that popular vote CAN still lose in favor of the fair representation of the overall nation.

It drives me nuts hearing people calling the fact that popular vote won but a candidate lost as being proof the system is broken. Well, again, let's speak in general terms because solving it is necessary on principle going forward regardless, but if this WASN'T possible, the United States would be in deep trouble if one didn't live inside the top few states.

California, Texas, Florida and New York...combined with a few others and focused on strongly enough to the exclusion of the outside states for the most part, could decide the Presidency. How? Just give the top few states in population enough freebies, benefits, goodies and treats to get them all to vote..or at 75% or more. That's enough. They'll vote for who gave them the biggest hug most recently, and the over 40+ states can get unified against like has never happened in our nation before or accept the distaste of dictate.

THAT is what popular vote looks like in a nation of 300 million people across 50 states...with VERY uneven density of population in VERY different parts of the nation. That is collectivism...or socialism...or communism...The differences are in the methods and specific flavors of it, but it's all un-American. If a previous election played with the Electoral College, reform it so it can't be done again....but don't turn the nation into mob rule or a centralized nightmare. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water in the worst way.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in