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.
originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: jonnywhite
Mind you in not a Clinton supports or a trump supporter I really don't care for either just to point that out because I know what most responses would be to me saying, with the electoral we just did elect an unqualified person, so even with the electoral an unqualified person was just elected so not any different then if the popular elected an unqualified person
originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
None of this would be an issue had the DNC done the right thing and backed Bernie Sanders. People can bitch and moan all they want but the fact is the DNC #ed themselves and the rest of the USA.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
The New York Times: www.nytimes.com...
Google: www.google.com...=enn/p//0/0///////////
NPR: www.npr.org...
I havent checked the other sites but I would imagine that they too have the same results.
Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election...
Hillary's 59,323,520 votes (47.7%) to Trump's 59,152,992 votes (47.5%)
Its the year 2000 and a Bush victory all over again.
If in-fact we live in a democracy or the illusion of one, then the person with the most votes has to be the winner.
It is not a democracy when a handful of select individuals (the electoral college), determine the outcome of an election.
And seeing first hand how the will of the voters translates to electoral votes was quite cool.
In United States presidential elections, a faithless elector is a member of the United States Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice-presidential candidate for whom they had pledged to vote. That is, they actually vote for another candidate, or fail to vote, or choose not to vote. A pledged elector can become a faithless elector only by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break.
Faithless elector
originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Darkphoenix77
It is completely true, when you hear politician, military etc speak they say they are spreading democracy, that's exactly what is always said, not we're spreading representative democracy or democratic republic, always say spreading democracy. And sorry but I've been all over the world place where they hate Americans places where as soon as they found out I was American they would become rude or their whole demeanor towards me would change and the vast majority of they say they hate the hypocrisy of America
originally posted by: jrod
originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
None of this would be an issue had the DNC done the right thing and backed Bernie Sanders. People can bitch and moan all they want but the fact is the DNC #ed themselves and the rest of the USA.
I agree on this. Most 'freethinking' people strongly feel that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie. When the party refused to put Bernie on the ticket they shot themselves in the foot.
originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: jonnywhite
Mind you in not a Clinton supports or a trump supporter I really don't care for either just to point that out because I know what most responses would be to me saying, with the electoral we just did elect an unqualified person, so even with the electoral an unqualified person was just elected so not any different then if the popular elected an unqualified person
The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." More recent legal scholars believe "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment."
Twenty-one states do not have laws that compel their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.[2] Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.[1] In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, specify that the faithless elector's vote is void,[3] though no state has yet had cause to enforce such a provision.
originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: Darkphoenix77
No sorry america is always saying things and then contradicting itself, we talk about spreading democracy and then we force countries to form their governments they way we want them, that's just one quick example I could name tons of them but you get the point and that's why they hate us and claiming to be the spreader of democracy while at the sametime electing our highest office in a manner that is non-democratic
originally posted by: Ignorantamericans
a reply to: jonnywhite
Also you said it is hair echoing the public, but how is that echoing the public when the majority of the public voted for the candidate that lost, so that is exactly not echoing the majority of the public.