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: PsychoEmperor
a reply to: Krakatoa
I'm all for this. All those blue states are going to get a rude awakening when they depress the vote in their own state, and cause a republican to win the popular vote and you have the Largest Republican Electoral Landslide in history.
originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
I see two options
Liberals are playing checkers again. Liberals are looking for other people's money.
Presidential Elections are a game, and to win the game, you spend your time and money to get the EC votes you need. If you know NY is going to go Blue, and it's not going to be close. Red is not going to spend that much money in the state. Blue knowing it will be blue, will spend less money there too. Big money is only spend in the battle ground states. Increase spending in the state is one reason for this.
If you need the popular vote, then more Red candidates will spend money hoping their ads attracts voters or keep Blue's voters at home. The margins in the blue states might not have been as large. Or if trump had people with ICE hats on at the poling places, he might have won by a couple of million....
originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: DBCowboy
that's actually is what the EC is for. Giving the people the illusion of a vote, but keeping the vote with the ruling class.
The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.[16] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he were elected by the Congress. However, once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Krakatoa
That means they think they have enough illegal alien votes to win now. With Illinois granting special voter ID's to illegals it is bound to make a difference. If it wasn't going to I doubt the dems would do it in the first place.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.
To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Irishhaf
If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.
To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.
I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Irishhaf
If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.
To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.
I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Irishhaf
If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.
To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.
I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.
Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
This tells you, only the big population centers matter. That is not what was intended by the founders, even if it is a legal decision.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Irishhaf
If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.
To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.
I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.
Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.
We have an awful lot of undocumenteds in Texas. A WHOLE lot. They mow our lawns, trim our trees, replace our roofs, bus our restaurant tables, and even clean our houses and offices. They help our small businesses make a lot of profit. Does that make us a crap hole?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Irishhaf
This tells you, only the big population centers matter. That is not what was intended by the founders, even if it is a legal decision.
I’ve always wondered what would happen if huge numbers of the people in the big urban areas started moving to the more rural areas? With more and more people telecommuting, that certainly is a possibility. If the liberals really wanted to win, they should encourage their followers to do just that. That would mess you guys up good, wouldn’t it?
originally posted by: seeker1963
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: Irishhaf
If I was a citizen there I would be irate, to me that is saying your vote does not matter and we don't care that you know.
To me it goes against everything are system was set up to support that you the individual is supposed to matter.
I live in Texas, and I do not vote Republican. I’ve had to live with the fact that my vote doesn’t matter at all. So, I know how it feels.
Who knows... with enough liberal votes, Texas can one day turn into the progressive craphole that California is.
We have an awful lot of undocumenteds in Texas. A WHOLE lot. They mow our lawns, trim our trees, replace our roofs, bus our restaurant tables, and even clean our houses and offices. They help our small businesses make a lot of profit. Does that make us a crap hole?
Nope!
Using that logic IMO it makes me think you support slavery.