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.

 

The Electoral College is NOT worse than a Popular Vote.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:05 PM
link   
So I was watching YouTubes because I'm a millennial consumer and I saw this post by Vox:



And I can't help but be reminded every election by these wannabe animated TED Talks that:




It is not you, or me, that directly elects the President, it is the Electoral College~. (Sucker!)



And so incase that Vox video somehow didn't seem informative enough
, essentially the United States is a Democratic Republic and this is not a True Democracy. But don't hold your breath too long, the United States is not a True Democracy on purpose, that is because a True Democracy is worse than a Representative Democracy, when it comes to actually being Democratic. I'll get to that in a minute, but...

You see, these WTT's(WannabeTEDTalks) only really have the express purpose of painting out all of the negative aspects of the electoral college, and none of the positives, or the actual reasons for it's origins of considerations. Outside of a straight out lie it's based on slavery.

The one that always seems to get me however, is this idea that the Electoral College is "SOOOO OLDDDD!!!", It's "ANCIENT! OUTDATED!" and "was started at THE BEGINING OF OUR COUNTRY!" and somehow this always confuses me when it comes to identifying how this argument supports a popular vote, because these systems were not considered independently...the founding fathers already having experience in Europe with popular vote systems, when coming to America and having their own hand at legislation sought to eliminate the disadvantages of the popular vote with a new system. You see, the electoral college is a democratic system inspired by the traditional popular vote...it's quite literally an updated version, where as the popular vote method would trace back to the birth of Democracy itself, and is much much older.

But that isn't to say things always age well, there could be issues within the Electoral College the founders did not see, but I promise you representative electorates was not one of them. Not to go into full propaganda mode, but to even understand the reasoning for the electoral system, you have to understand the disadvantages of a popular vote first, because that is what inspired it, it's the birth of real politics.

A True Democracy isn't just immediately a utopia, it always works much differently when it is in practice than it does hypothetically, and so popular votes actually have inherent flaws that are immediately identifiable in practice, the first and foremost being disenfranchisement of minorities. This one is actually quite easy to demonstrate, as simply by being in the situation of being a minority in a popular vote, you will never have a chance of winning. Makes sense right? And so the first understanding about a Representative Democracy is that Representation is not the same as Control. This more or less boils down to; Representatives practice Bargaining and Negotiation, and Democracy does not, vote counts are not something that is negotiable. A Representative Democracy is superior because while you may not always gain full control, you are more likely for your voice to be heard and that is everything for liberty.

And then the second problem isn't that one person shouldn't equal one vote, but rather the effect of reducing that to numbers has. If you have 5 white people, 3 brown, and 2 black people in a popular vote system, people that might be less ethical could point out that all white has to do is kill one black person for full control. The game turns literally into numbers, and this can often lead to direct conflict of that. A representative system however, would have 1 white leader, 1 brown leader, and 1 black leader, and eliminating any of the voters would not eliminate their voice as they drop arguments in an arena like setting for their needs. Popular votes are more simple, it's true, there is no need for an arena, because the winner simply takes all and there is less need for discussion about what that direction entails, they won. A popular vote is shortest path to fascism. The logic for the Nazis was quite literally to have just enough majority to abolish other parties, and our founders built a defense for that situation into the constitution in advance. Had Germany had an American Constitution with an Electoral College, WW2 would have never happened.

But then finally, my favorite, the effect this has on creating what we know as 'the states'. You see, what is cool about an elector system, is the local effect this has on communities and the formation of States that have powers overriding the Federal Government to govern themselves. This effectively makes the USA, 50 'mini-countries', and the effect of being a Texan, or New Yorker, or Californian would become overshadowed by the dull "American" description if we were to succumb our individuality and loyalty to the States, for a popular vote. It could even become illegal to not vote, and you would be fined like Australia, until we had a 89% voter turnout like the Nazis. There would never be a reason to again visit Utah for a politician and all of our individuality would bleed away into the red white and blue. I'd rather be a strong nation of 50 unified individual thinkers, than a nation of 50 people that all just think the same damn thing. The truth is in America, being President means nothing, because he aint the Governor of Texas.
edit on 5-11-2020 by TwoBlades because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The issue is simple - Democrats want to get rid of the EC because large population states would control every presidential election and Democrats run those states. There would never be another Republican elected.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well written and great points. I keep seeing people say they want to abolish the electoral college because it is so unfair!!1! I did some research into the electoral college the other day because I was getting into some arguments with people about it. They all repeat that its a system built from slavery and used to oppress the people. I just wish people would take some time to research things before believing everything they are told on social media.

The one problem I do have is the gerrymandering. Thanks for giving me more ammo for the arguments I'm sure to get into again.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten
The issue is simple - Democrats want to get rid of the EC because large population states would control every presidential election and Democrats run those states. There would never be another Republican elected.


Maybe, maybe not.

What about all the republicans in Red Country California?

It may actually bite them in the ass when they have to actually contend with rural voters.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: HalWesten
The issue is simple - Democrats want to get rid of the EC because large population states would control every presidential election and Democrats run those states. There would never be another Republican elected.


Maybe, maybe not.

What about all the republicans in Red Country California?

It may actually bite them in the ass when they have to actually contend with rural voters.


There are way too many Democrats in Cali to ever give Republicans a chance at swinging that state red.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Maybe not the state. But the aggregate? Those republican votes NEVER count for #. That may change if they actually have to account for ALL the votes.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


One thing is for sure, if it's a popular vote, you will have lots of 'encouragement' to 'have your voice heard'.
No one will be left to waste~

Edit:
PS. What do "Flags" mean? Also Trophies and Lightning? Thx.
edit on 5-11-2020 by TwoBlades because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten
The issue is simple - Democrats want to get rid of the EC because large population states would control every presidential election and Democrats run those states. There would never be another Republican elected.


agreed.


I love and live in rural areas. I want my voice heard.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TwoBlades
A good OP and a good overall example of what the EC seeks to accomplish for our Republic. S&F.

Yes, in a sense we are 50 mini-countries, but we are all united under a Constitution we have all agreed to abide by as the law of the land, which supersedes states rights in the event of a conflict between state constitutions and the law of the land.
Example: The first amendment is a right for ALL American citizens regardless of any state law to the contrary.
Example: The constitution guarantees ALL Americans a Republican form of government under section 4.

So being the president and therefore the head of the executive branch of the law of the land means plenty in Texas when it comes to governors over-stepping their boundaries regardless of their states constitution, at least in theory. In practice, things don't always work like they're supposed to. The Rona lock-downs are an example of that.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

the rona comparison killed my boner so hard, but a popular vote in that scenario would have just been LOL.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: HalWesten
The issue is simple - Democrats want to get rid of the EC because large population states would control every presidential election and Democrats run those states. There would never be another Republican elected.


Maybe, maybe not.

What about all the republicans in Red Country California?

It may actually bite them in the ass when they have to actually contend with rural voters.


There are way too many Democrats in Cali to ever give Republicans a chance at swinging that state red.

Not true. The state has turned red in past elections. Ronald Reagan for example. Still, you have a good point. I think Cali could stand to split their electoral votes. Something Illinois needs as well.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten
The issue is simple - Democrats want to get rid of the EC because large population states would control every presidential election and Democrats run those states. There would never be another Republican elected.


I just want to progress. To move forward.

We’re headed into a Tech & AI world.

I want more science, more space exploration, and definitely more separation of church and state.

What once was, will never be again.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 03:11 PM
link   
My problem is trying to reach the NPC voter.

When I read the Federalist Papers and other books on the convention, it really opened my eyes to the challenges. The EC is a pretty good solution. Way better than popular vote. That is where I am coming from. But when the topic comes up?

All I get is "slavery", "old document", "yada yada something Democracy", "social justice".

Mention anything outlined in the OP and it's glazed over eyeballs time. Oh, and I must be a "fill in the blank with epitaph". Very productive :/



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I just came across this. Seems Colorado is going to be assigning Electoral College votes based on who wins the popular vote.

www.denverpost.com...


Colorado voters have passed Proposition 113 — confirming lawmakers’ 2019 decision to assign the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.

The ballot measure had 52.2% support Wednesday evening with 88% of the vote counted statewide.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


I would argue that representation is a very educated decision for an individual.

Would you do your own surgery? Would you represent yourself in court?

Often other people can actually accomplish your goals more effectively for you, and it's only when you fail to be represented that you have actually lost in a Republic, but this is a much lower bar than outright Winning or Losing, to be represented, and has more consistent fruition for it's participants.

The notion of church and state would also be difficult in a non-representative system and would just immediately result in strangleholds. Everything would become black and white legally, instead of the beautiful gray that makes up our identities. I agree with power limitations for excessive populations of control and ideology, but outright silencing religious people is wrong too.

I mean, I'm not going to beat around the bush that gerrymandering isn't extremely sus, and that the electoral college is perfect, but it yields better individual freedoms on a side by side comparison. I think the fathers would have been pissed about the gerrymandering, outside that, it's still the best system in the world for actual democracy.
edit on 5-11-2020 by TwoBlades because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TwoBlades

I'll be amazed if we even engage in elections in 5-10 years time.

------------

Flags are the amount of time my threads have been flagged by other users. This is not a 'bad' flag. It's just a method of promoting a thread discussion.

The trophy is a calculated "Way Above Top Secret" (WATS) score. It's an aggregate score with some funky math that SkepticOverlord wrote up on a bender one time.

The lightning is another strangely calculated score that has something to do with your posts and the stars they receive. That's called your Karma score.


edit on 11 5 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

ah ok, so flags are 'topic stars', lightning is stars/posts, and trophies are cool points. Got it.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TwoBlades
a reply to: Annee


I would argue that representation is a very educated decision for an individual.

Would you do your own surgery? Would you represent yourself in court?

Often other people can actually accomplish your goals more effectively for you, and it's only when you fail to be represented that you have actually lost in a Republic, but this is a much lower bar than outright Winning or Losing, to be represented, and has more consistent fruition for it's participants.

The notion of church and state would also be difficult in a non-representative system and would just immediately result in strangleholds. Everything would become black and white legally, instead of the beautiful gray that makes up our identities. I agree with power limitations for excessive populations of control and ideology, but outright silencing religious people is wrong too.

I mean, I'm not going to beat around the bush that gerrymandering isn't extremely sus, and that the electoral college is perfect, but it yields better individual freedoms on a side by side comparison. I think the fathers would have been pissed about the gerrymandering, outside that, it's still the best system in the world for actual democracy.


I’m not taking a hard stance. It’s just the direction I want to go. In a logical/practical way.

We need to think differently. BTW — I’m 75 — I’ve seen both progressive changes and regression IMO.

Here’s one. Why do we need green manicured lawns. Wouldn’t it me more logical to grow food or trees?

Back on topic. I fully understand representation. But, the divide seems to becoming more of a Grand Canyon — to the point no one is being represented in the way they need.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I know that partisanship can be daunting, but representation is exactly the reason that things sneak into the party system in the first place.

America is green(ish) not because we have ever once had a green president, but because those concerns are voiced in our elections. A popular vote method would just have topics like that axed away for more 'important' partisan issues, and the flagship parties wouldn't consider it at all. The elector system is the bridge across that canyon.



posted on Nov, 5 2020 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TwoBlades
a reply to: Annee

I know that partisanship can be daunting, but representation is exactly the reason that things sneak into the party system in the first place.

America is green(ish) not because we have ever once had a green president, but because those concerns are voiced in our elections. A popular vote method would just have topics like that axed away for more 'important' partisan issues, and the flagship parties wouldn't consider it at all. The elector system is the bridge across that canyon.


I’m teetering on it.

They don’t want their world disrupted and shoved forward — I don’t like am anchor on mine.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join