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.

 

Red,Blue, Your Neighboors and The Individual

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
For people like myself who have analyzed the election process since High School Civics class, I know I would have been a better "voter" had my state amounted to a hill of beans in an electoral college sense.

To use a color code I call back to the election. States are known for their patisanship leaning one way or another, Red being republican, and Blue being democrat. Notice how it was down to 5 or 6 states which were predominately neither which determined our elected president. Is it fair to ignore the will of the people, by coloring them a certain color only to group them in with their state color? I think like a blue, but if I lived in a state that were predominantly red, my blue gets washed over and ignored if that state district says well we heard the will of the people, and they are red. Therefor we categorize this here entire state red. We choose to ignore your blues, because your neighboors said red more than you did. Our state thinks like a red, therefor your pitiful squeak of blue shall be ignored.

This can also apply if I were a red, and lived in a blue state.

In closing, My State should not vote on my behalf, I should vote on my behalf. Is the will of the neighbors next door my will? Certainly not, so why did you group me with them?

In order for a government to listen to its voters on the matter of presidential election, listen to the will of the whole, all of our individual voices matter. Grouping us, is like stereotyping us. Our first amendment right allows us freedom of expression. But how can you hear our individual expression when you group us with our neighboors? What's good for Sally is not always what's good for Billy.

Again in order to hear the will of the people allow us our individual right of self expression. Count our votes on an individual basis. My neighboor who is neither red nor blue will thank for not grouping him with me.

-ADHDsux4me




posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Edited for top thread viewing.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by ADHDsux4me]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Because with straight popular voting, they could concentrate on the "city-states" such as New York or LA.

There are problem either way. It's a matter of finding the best solution, although I agree the one we have is not good.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Yes, but with very few exceptions, electoral votes follow popular vote.

Anyway, If I'm blue and I live in a red nation then my blue gets washed over if the nation goes to the red candidate. That's hardly fair. My voice isn't being heard.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Because with straight popular voting, they could concentrate on the "city-states" such as New York or LA.

There are problem either way. It's a matter of finding the best solution, although I agree the one we have is not good.


Though I would have accepted that aguement in the past, think of these "city states" like this.

How is it our right, or or the governments rights to tell a voter where to live to find work? I'm sorry Mr or Mrs Voter you can't live in the Major Metropolitan area to find work. We need your vote in a rural communitiy.

Besides there are enough of you voter types living there allready. Good luck with the finding work thing, and remember to vote for me next election.

That is my counter argument, people move to metropolis's for work. If I can't get work in the rural south, where do I move to? The logical answer is a larger city where more work is available.

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
Though I would have accepted that aguement in the past, think of these "city states" like this.

How is it our right, or or the governments rights to tell a voter where to live to find work? I'm sorry Mr or Mrs Voter you can't live in the Major Metropolitan area to find work. We need your vote in a rural communitiy.

Besides there are enough of you voter types living there allready. Good luck with the finding work thing, and remember to vote for me next election.

That is my counter argument, people move to metropolis's for work. If I can't get work in the rural south, where do I move to? The logical answer is a larger city where more work is available.

-ADHDsux4me


It's not their right, nor do they say that. It was only a point to show how the election focus would change, leaving out America's farmers, ranchers, and scores of smaller towns.

Stats from 1990:
New York, NY 7,323,000
Los Angeles, CA 3,485,000
Chicago, IL 2,784,000
Houston, TX 1,631,000
Philadelphia, PA 1,586,000
San Diego, CA 1,111,000
Detroit, MI 1,028,000
Dallas, TX 1,007,000
Phoenix, AZ 983,000
San Antonio, TX 936,000

Total 21,874,000

That number is surely up from 1990, and that is 1/3 of the people that voted in this election for Bush.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join