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.


EC facts, popular vote requirements and EC possible changes

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 03:58 AM
There has been alot of topics due to trump winning the EC and hillory (currently but open for debate) the popular vote.
All around the EC and changing it to the popular vote.
I would like to (as the title says) go over the EC , popular vote option and some good idea for modification of EC.

Part one....Electoral College.
The framers of the constitution knew a pure democracy has many major flaws , chances of bad things happening , a strong support of limited government and states rights.

To prevent mob rule they established the electoral college.
The idea was that it prevented heavy population centers from deciding the fates of all US people.
thus they broke down votes by states and assigning electorates by population of states.
In almost all cases (but a few exceptions due to states making laws for them) its winner take all.
The idea is the small states would still have a voice.
Also the technology of fast , accurate direct nation voting tabulation was not feasible.

the cold truth is while better than straight nation popular vote, it is not totally devote of large population states from having a bigger voice.
the reality is that all that is needed is 11 states out of 50 (plus territories and DC) .
those 11 states are the most populated and all that is needed is 51 percent of the vote.
Also small states (ex maine, SD and ND) if they run predominately one party the other seldom even fights for them.
We see examples of this in CA and IL where it is a very small percentage that come from the big city/county that decide for the state.

Due to this the electoral numbers can show a greater "will of the people" (something touted by a winner) than the actual popular vote may show.

In this election it has been brought out that the electors TECHNICALLY by the CONSTITUTION can choose to vote for ANYONE they choose instead of who they are pledged for. some states have laws against this .
The framers probably put this in just in case of some situation that may be so grievous this is a safety valve.
However It has seldom if ever done due to the anarchy that such a precedent would cause.
On a side note to those calling for this once you open that door (for hillory in this case) you cant control the next time if they choose to get someone you not only dont want but someone not even running.

Let me point out that even with its flaws the framers choosing this system was overall a brilliant choice.
Why you say?
because out of 45 presidents (counting president elect trump) there have ONLY BEEN 5 (including trumps win) TIMES this has happened.

Also realize that even when this has happened that it helps prevent endless recounts and a buffer to minor voting fraud.
lets be honest to claim no voting fraud is unrealistic and PROVEN IT EXISTS.


When one loses to the EC but has seemed to won the popular vote there have been calls for eliminating the EC.
But this is the first election that there has (IMO due to who the loser is not to the system) a greater outcry than previous ones.
so lets look at what HAS TO BE DONE to make this happen, secure and fair.

One ... a constitutional amendment.. Short answer a daunting task due to framers not wanting snap and possibly nation damaging decisions.

Two .... MANDATORY VOTER ID LAW. Given very vote will count and YES THERE IS FRAUD (to what level is the debate) this is a necessity.
Also thanks to states giving DL and state ID to ILLEGAL immigrants (who have NO RIGHT to vote) it becomes necessary FOR THE ID TO ESTABLISH LEGAL STATUS.

Three. Mandatory verifying and cleaning up voter registration lists on a YEARLY BASIS. Again given that each vote counts location of residence, if your now a felon, and even if your alive it becomes more vital THE LISTS ARE ACCURATE.
The joke in chicago IL that "the dead vote early and often" is not a joke.

Four . No posting results untill ALL POLLS CLOSE. Because every vote counts the later polls could be influenced unfairly due to bad polls and reporting (ring a bell).

Five . All voting systems (be paper or electronic) MUST BE MONITORED by a third party unaffiliated and strictly enforced by state election boards.

Now lets break down why this will NEVER HAPPEN.

One most people supporting popular vote will not put in the work for a new amendment.
Lets be honest this is why lately people go to the supreme court to try to get "rights".

Points 2-5 when people (especially voter laws and cleaning up voter registration lists) have tried this it has been fought (mostly by democrats ironically the same one calling for popular vote right now) tooth and nail against.

The reality is unless you implement the 5 things I listed due to (using the 5 times the EC has not matched the PV) closeness of the votes you will not get a fair election.
Example in this one the evidence presented of illegals in CA and the "dead vote/questionable votes" in chicago alone could change the numbers and delay the results for a years.


posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 04:27 AM

Ok due to the limited time the EC has not reflected the popular vote (and note THAT IS REALLY RARE) how can we modify it to be more reflective of the popular vote?

first is the obvious new amendment of the constitution because no matter what that has to be done.

IMO the 2-5 points I mentioned (at min Voter id laws) for popular vote to work SHOULD be implemented, but for discussion lets leave those out.

Ok here is my two options.

Option A
the electoral votes are split between ALL CANDIDATES based on POPULAR VOTE.

example ....if you have a republican, democrat and purple party with a state say having 9 electoral votes.
All of them get 33 percent of the popular vote.
Each would get 3 electoral votes.

In this option the popular vote would then be accurately reflected in the electoral total and open the way for third party candidates along with more than two choices.

now if no candidate can get the 270 due to more than (we hope) two candidates running for president than the law must either have a run off (which I like) or changed to most EC votes win PERIOD.


Now this option would be closer to the intent and spirit of the founding fathers.
That being equal STATE representation with the smaller states / populations having equal representation as big states.

IMO this would then require presidential candidates to try to win EVERYONE VOTE and represent everyone and open it up for third parties.

In this one the one who gets the most EC votes wins.

Think about it EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY comes into play..


Lets be hones and real here...

The big states (CA, TX, FL, MI for example) and the power centers in individual states (detroit, Chicago, LA, for example) will NEVER GIVE UP their influence and power.

Example Chicago (which will be used for all next examples) vote that normally causes (with relatively small number) IL to go democrat being neutralized by popular vote totals counting from other states?

Or that they would be neutralized in importance due to electoral votes being proportioned by popular vote.

Or in case of popular vote the voter ID laws and Mandatory cleaning / updating voter rosters would eliminate the institutional voter fraud and/or shall we say irregularities that they use to their benefit.

Or in all cases of popular vote, proportional Electoral vote, or one vote per state that people in CA and IL (for example) where alot dont vote due to knowing that LA and chicago (respectfully) usually overrides republicans every time would NOW COME OUT TO VOTE knowing they CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

At best lets have a FOCUSED discussion on the ideas presented for change
and be honest about the reality of it really happening.


posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: scrounger

Very good OP. Id have to agree there will be no changes, but for a slightly different reason.

What Ive noticed is that with each electio where the Dems lose, the party itself tilts further left.

If you examine the Leftists response to this election it becomes more evident just how radicalized the Leftists have become. Ithink more Americans are seeing this and will refuse any changes to the EC system as they become more afraid of posssible Leftist takeover of the US.

Just my 2 cents.

posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 10:26 AM

originally posted by: scrounger
But this is the first election that there has been a greater outcry than previous ones.

You must not have been around these parts in 2000

posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 06:44 PM

originally posted by: Voiceofthemajority

originally posted by: scrounger
But this is the first election that there has been a greater outcry than previous ones.

You must not have been around these parts in 2000

Im sorry but a simple google search cant seem to find street full of protestors demanding that gore should have won.
I cant seem to find people in noticeable numbers (or any articles for that matter) demanding the electoral college change their votes to gore.

In fact only one state FL had multiple recounts NOTE WITH GORE STILL LOSING .

In fact cant find any time frame like now of WEEKS of news coverage of people demanding hillory should be president.

in fact I cant find one college cancelling classes due to the "emotional distress" of bush winning.

Yea I was around...where were you?


top topics

log in