ChiGoose Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Didn't he campaign there about a week before the NY Republican primary? I'm not sure on the timing, but that would make sense. Doesn't help him in the general to spend any time in NY because of the EC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 2 Author Share Posted September 2 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power (since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors) and by small states who increased their power due to the minimum of three electors per state.[31] The compromise was reached after other proposals, including to get a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.[31] Levitsky and Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected." *** Both during slavery and also after slavery, well into the 20th century in fact, the states of the South stood firmly in opposition to the adoption of a national popular vote. The South was the bulwark of opposition during the period of slavery, of course, because slave-holding states received extra electoral votes thanks to the three-fifths clause. White Southerners, thus, gained added influence in the Electoral College, and if they had switched to a national popular vote, they would have lost that influence. *** In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were enslaved Black people, who couldn’t vote. James Madison from Virginia—where enslaved people accounted for 60 percent of the population—knew that either a direct presidential election, or one with electors divvied up according to free white residents only, wouldn’t fly in the South. “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States,” said Madison, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” The result was the controversial “three-fifths compromise,” in which three-fifths of the enslaved Black population would be counted toward allocating representatives and electors and calculating federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Southern states would ratify the Constitution and gave Virginia, home to more than 200,000 slaves, a quarter (12) of the total electoral votes required to win the presidency (46). You seem to be confusing how parties work with how elections work. There are no provisions in the Constitution for parties nominating their candidates because the Founders did not anticipate political parties (Washington famously argued against them in his farewell address). If you have a problem with party officials selecting the nominees, then you have a problem with basically every president before Nixon. You're also making a bunch of assumptions about me personally despite you not knowing me. It may come as a surprise to you, but I have no influence on how the Democratic Party selects its presidential nominee, nor do I agree with every decision it makes. You just seem to like to result to strawmen and assumptions because it's easier than dealing with reality. The idea that the electoral college makes every square inch of the country matter is ridiculous. Where is the breathless coverage of both candidates duking it out in Fargo or Cheyenne? Occasionally candidates travel to non-competitive states to boost local candidates, but there's no strategy of winning the election that is going to invest campaign resources in Wyoming, Hawaii, or Vermont, etc. Those places do not matter in presidential elections because of the EC. The millions of Republicans who vote in California and New York do not matter. California had more Trump voters than any other state in 2020 and none of them mattered, thanks to the EC. While my point has been more about how the EC is bad than an advocation for the national popular vote (which would be an improvement but doesn't solve the problems we're seeing), were the popular vote to decide the election, it would put *more* people and places in play. Any candidate who focused just on the big cities would lose because not only are the biggest cities just a small portion of the overall population, ignoring the majority of Americans who don't live in big cities would alienate them from the majority of voters. The current battleground states of PA, GA, MI, AZ, WI, and NV comprise of 15% of the US population. So even your fear of only 30% of the country mattering would be twice the current situation with the EC. I'm surprised you're not advocating eliminating the EC given that. Again, that's irrelevant from the conversation around the EC and I don't have any say over how the Democratic Party picks it's nominee. I just have to live with the choices on hand. Did you just site Wiki??? Slavery was a dying institution in 1787. The issues of 1787 - of which there were many among the states - slavery was not the driver of an electoral college. Trying to manipulate their population in Congress yes everyone understands they did that. But not because their concern was the presidency - an office in 1789 that was absolutely not viewed with the power and influence as it would by 1900. The SCOTUS hadn’t even defined its powers yet until Marbury. But carry on with your attempts to rewrite history. The word slavery doesn’t even appear in the constitution. The country wasn’t even sure it would survive this new experiment - the British still occupied the Great Lakes and the new nation was confined to the Mississippi River. With no clue how the next 30 years would play out. The “slave power’s” influence was nowhere near as prevalent in 1787 as it would be by 1807. The Founders in 1787 thought slavery would eventually die out. The cotton gin changed everything. You’re looking at these events thru the prism of a communist in 2024. Just like you were programmed growing up. To hate everything about the Founding. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 2 hours ago, Big Blitz said: Did you just site Wiki??? Slavery was a dying institution in 1787. The issues of 1787 - of which there were many among the states - slavery was not the driver of an electoral college. Trying to manipulate their population in Congress yes everyone understands they did that. But not because their concern was the presidency - an office in 1789 that was absolutely not viewed with the power and influence as it would by 1900. The SCOTUS hadn’t even defined its powers yet until Marbury. But carry on with your attempts to rewrite history. The word slavery doesn’t even appear in the constitution. The country wasn’t even sure it would survive this new experiment - the British still occupied the Great Lakes and the new nation was confined to the Mississippi River. With no clue how the next 30 years would play out. The “slave power’s” influence was nowhere near as prevalent in 1787 as it would be by 1807. The Founders in 1787 thought slavery would eventually die out. The cotton gin changed everything. You’re looking at these events thru the prism of a communist in 2024. Just like you were programmed growing up. To hate everything about the Founding. Yeah man, I cited a couple of sources but started with wiki because I wasn't super confident in your comprehension ability. In any case, the slave states rejected every proposal for selecting the president until they agreed on the EC because, in combination with the 3/5ths compromise, it gave them power disproportionate to their voting population. It's not exactly a secret. Do you ever wonder why education correlates with partisan leaning? And finally, if I was programmed growing up, they did a terrible job at it since most of my family voted for Trump... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 2 Author Share Posted September 2 14 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Yeah man, I cited a couple of sources but started with wiki because I wasn't super confident in your comprehension ability. In any case, the slave states rejected every proposal for selecting the president until they agreed on the EC because, in combination with the 3/5ths compromise, it gave them power disproportionate to their voting population. It's not exactly a secret. Do you ever wonder why education correlates with partisan leaning? And finally, if I was programmed growing up, they did a terrible job at it since most of my family voted for Trump... Ok good so we’ve established the EC had nothing to do with slavery. You still want to take that position? They also put in the Constitution how we can amend it. It’s tough to do. 3/4 of the states? 38/50?? So arcane. Should we do away with that process as well? Anyway - I’ll let the good folks not at wiki explain: FALSE CLAIM #2: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT SLAVERY Some have made the false historical claim that the Electoral College was enacted to protect slavery. Critics charge that because three-fifths of the slave population was included in the representation tabulation, it supposedly gave Southern states a political advantage with more Electoral College votes. Significantly, though, when the proposal for the Electoral College was voted on during the Constitutional Convention, Northern states with a lower slave population, unanimously voted for the proposal; yet, with the exception of Virginia, the Southern states, with a higher population of slaves, voted against it.7 Moreover, when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was practiced in every state, and the number of slaves did not give the Southern states a particular advantage. According to the 1790 Census, New York and Virginia were the largest slave-holding states north and south of the Mason–Dixon Line.8 If you subtracted the entire slave populations present in each state, Virginia still had a larger population of free people (over 136,000 more) than New York and still would have had more representatives in Congress and a larger electoral vote. In fact, the Electoral College “contributed to ending slavery, since Abraham Lincoln, having only earned 39.9% of the popular vote in 1860, nevertheless won a crushing victory in the Electoral College—leading many Southern slaveholders to stampede to secession in 1860 and 1861. They could run the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the Electoral College would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.”9 The Electoral College requires candidates to appeal to a broad cross-section of the American people, which in turn moderates and combats extremism and passions harmful to the country as a whole. https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-electoral-college/debunking-myths-and-misinformation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 2 Author Share Posted September 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 1 hour ago, Big Blitz said: Ok good so we’ve established the EC had nothing to do with slavery. You still want to take that position? They also put in the Constitution how we can amend it. It’s tough to do. 3/4 of the states? 38/50?? So arcane. Should we do away with that process as well? Anyway - I’ll let the good folks not at wiki explain: FALSE CLAIM #2: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT SLAVERY Some have made the false historical claim that the Electoral College was enacted to protect slavery. Critics charge that because three-fifths of the slave population was included in the representation tabulation, it supposedly gave Southern states a political advantage with more Electoral College votes. Significantly, though, when the proposal for the Electoral College was voted on during the Constitutional Convention, Northern states with a lower slave population, unanimously voted for the proposal; yet, with the exception of Virginia, the Southern states, with a higher population of slaves, voted against it.7 Moreover, when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was practiced in every state, and the number of slaves did not give the Southern states a particular advantage. According to the 1790 Census, New York and Virginia were the largest slave-holding states north and south of the Mason–Dixon Line.8 If you subtracted the entire slave populations present in each state, Virginia still had a larger population of free people (over 136,000 more) than New York and still would have had more representatives in Congress and a larger electoral vote. In fact, the Electoral College “contributed to ending slavery, since Abraham Lincoln, having only earned 39.9% of the popular vote in 1860, nevertheless won a crushing victory in the Electoral College—leading many Southern slaveholders to stampede to secession in 1860 and 1861. They could run the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the Electoral College would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.”9 The Electoral College requires candidates to appeal to a broad cross-section of the American people, which in turn moderates and combats extremism and passions harmful to the country as a whole. https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-electoral-college/debunking-myths-and-misinformation If only there was some record of what the Founders thought about the Electoral College and slavery. Like, if James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution had thoughts on it.. Oh wait. "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." (James Madison July 19, 1787) Wow. It's almost as if one of the major factors in designing the Electoral College was to appease the slaves states... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaos Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 Mob rule sucks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 48 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: If only there was some record of what the Founders thought about the Electoral College and slavery. Like, if James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution had thoughts on it.. Oh wait. "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." (James Madison July 19, 1787) Wow. It's almost as if one of the major factors in designing the Electoral College was to appease the slaves states... Now do suffrage for women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Now do suffrage for women Why? Seems completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 (edited) 56 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Wow. It's almost as if one of the major factors in designing the Electoral College was to appease the slaves states... The EC was the most widely accepted option to electing a POTUS - you continue to confuse the 3/5 compromise and how to count members of Congress with the purpose of the EC. If the EC offends you - and you think it’s the result of slavery and thus a relic that should be sent to the ash heap….guess what…. Then you need to apply that to near every compromise they made. That it’s all about slavery thus the whole constitution, Bill of Rights, the States themselves…..all invalid. Bc we needed to appease the Slave Power….. Oh wait! Does it make sense now folks. They actually do believe this and think we should set the Constitution on fire. Edited September 3 by Big Blitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 42 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Why? Seems completely unrelated to the topic of this thread. It's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 13 minutes ago, Pokebball said: It's not. Care to elaborate? 55 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: The EC was the most widely accepted option to electing a POTUS - you continue to confuse the 3/5 compromise and how to count members of Congress with the purpose of the EC. If the EC offends you - and you think it’s the result of slavery and thus a relic that should be sent to the ash heap….guess what…. Then you need to apply that to near every compromise they made. That it’s all about slavery thus the whole constitution, Bill of Rights, the States themselves…..all invalid. Bc we needed to appease the Slave Power….. Oh wait! Does it make sense now folks. They actually do believe this and think we should set the Constitution on fire. Tremendous leaps of logic here. The EC no longer does what it was designed to do. It is outdated, obsolete, and no country designing an electoral system today would copy it. So maybe, just maybe, it's not the best way to elect a president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Care to elaborate? Tremendous leaps of logic here. The EC no longer does what it was designed to do. It is outdated, obsolete, and no country designing an electoral system today would copy it. So maybe, just maybe, it's not the best way to elect a president. The EC elected Lincoln. Your definition of “no longer doing what it is designed to do” is “Democrats need to win every election.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 5 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: The EC elected Lincoln. Your definition of “no longer doing what it is designed to do” is “Democrats need to win every election.” The fundamental problem you seem to be having is that you do not understand my argument. You assume that the words I type mean something other than what they plainly mean. You are bringing your biases in to the point that it's clouding what you're actually reading. My argument: The electoral college is a vestige of having to deal with slave states and it no longer serves the purpose it once did. There are better ways to elect a president. If you think my goal is for Dems to win every election, you do not know me. So do not pretend that you do. If I had may way, both the Democratic and Republican parties as we know them today would cease to exist. Also, if your best argument for the EC is "it did something good 150 years ago" then your argument is as outdated as the EC is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 11 hours ago, Tiberius said: Of course, the economic growth in southern states is attracting many non-Conservative voters to those places. Ga, Tx, Nc and even SC will be in play for the Dems going forward GA/NC, sure. SC, no. South Carolina has been one of the fastest growing states in the country in recent years, with Greenville & Charleston exploding in population. Both cities now have Republican Mayors, with Charleston ousting their incumbent Democrat Mayor. I have a place in Georgia, as well as South Carolina. Georgia has a heavy influx of Indian population in the suburbs who vote Dem for some reason and a lot of the transplants move for work, so it’s a mixed bag. South Carolina is exploding in population with two cities and coastal living, but its a lot more of elective relocation than it is career driven.. as in GA/NC. This aligns more with Florida, which has become ruby red under DeSantis, with elective relocations from NY/NJ etc The people moving from the north to the south as an elective relocation tend to be super conservative. Edited September 3 by SCBills 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorin' Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: If only there was some record of what the Founders thought about the Electoral College and slavery. Like, if James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution had thoughts on it.. Oh wait. "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." (James Madison July 19, 1787) Wow. It's almost as if one of the major factors in designing the Electoral College was to appease the slaves states... Imagine arguing the Electoral College is inherently anti-democratic while pledging blind support to a party that empowers Super Delegates to select their presidential candidates. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 5 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Imagine arguing the Electoral College is inherently anti-democratic while pledging blind support to a party that empowers Super Delegates to select their presidential candidates. It’s really hard to get so many things wrong in one sentence, but you’ve managed quite a bit here. For starters, Superdelegates can’t even vote on the first ballot in the Dem nomination process. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It’s really hard to get so many things wrong in one sentence, but you’ve managed quite a bit here. For starters, Superdelegates can’t even vote on the first ballot in the Dem nomination process. Well why were they there? And once they got rid of them - in 2020 they just proclaimed Biden the nominee and had him hide. In 2024 we currently have no clue who POTUS is following the late July coup where he was absolutely coerced to get out - replaced by a moron that hasn’t one any primary any votes and is being hidden. You are on record cheering this machine on. But the Electoral College - bc it isn’t a popular vote only - is a problem for you. Are Executive Orders a problem for you? Is the amendment process? Is the Bill of Rights? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Well why were they there? And once they got rid of them - in 2020 they just proclaimed Biden the nominee and had him hide. In 2024 we currently have no clue who POTUS is following the late July coup where he was absolutely coerced to get out - replaced by a moron that hasn’t one any primary any votes and is being hidden. You are on record cheering this machine on. But the Electoral College - bc it isn’t a popular vote only - is a problem for you. Are Executive Orders a problem for you? Is the amendment process? Is the Bill of Rights? Man, you keep on with the projection, huh? Can’t stand that you were proven wrong so now you want to change the subject while pretending you know what I believe even though you seem fundamentally incapable of simply reading words without your prejudices changing the meaning? Is reading a problem for you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted September 3 Author Share Posted September 3 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Man, you keep on with the projection, huh? Can’t stand that you were proven wrong so now you want to change the subject while pretending you know what I believe even though you seem fundamentally incapable of simply reading words without your prejudices changing the meaning? Is reading a problem for you? The EC does not exist because we needed to appease slave states. I asked you which slave states and you didn’t answer. And yes, if you have a selective problem with the EC over slavery (you don’t) then you have a problem with the entire Constitution where you could argue all of it was about appeasing slave states. But you don’t have a problem with the EC. You have a problem with losing. I can’t have this discussion with someone that doesn’t understand why our system exists the way it does - corrected wrongs all along the way bc we are moral and religious people (ooops can’t wait to see the aftermath of that world that’s gone) - and why it’s vital to preserve it. You disdain freedom. You mock it. You have no clue how to preserve it. You are a part of that one generation away hiding 6 feet apart in masks from losing the worlds last best hope. You were just told this week that Silicon Valley was told by the WHITE HOUSE to STFU about Hunter Biden and Covid and with ZERO pushback they all did. And you want plus one democracy??? Gtfo Freedom baby!!! Edited September 3 by Big Blitz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts