trump acting like a dick to so called blue states has no political ramifications at all for him, he could lose the popular vote by 10 million this time and still win the election. every vote should count the same there is absolutely no reason for me to vote in November.
another reason electoral college is bad
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
Then don't. We're all better off when the uneducated stay home.
Look lassie if we the uneducated stayed home you don’t have any one to work for!
Last edited:
think the opposite is true, people like you got us in this mess, problem is there are way to many of your type, you all convince your base were elitist because were educated.
If he's from Cloverdale, I doubt it. Greene County is another story - Owen County too... My friend taught at Eastern Greene and said some kids are born in the "holler" and show up to school with no SSN.
The electoral college system was chosen by the framers of the Constitution so that voters in less populous states would have a voice. If every vote counted the same, the election would be controlled by the states with the largest populations, like California, Texas, and New York. Is that what you are advocating?
yes its a national election every vote should count the same no matter where you live, should a few midwestern states and Florida decide every election, and I don't buy your premise that the larger states would control the election. how many people don't vote in certain states because its a foregone conclusion.
I'd say it was more to appease the southern slave states who didn't want to be overwhelmed by the non-slave north. It was a compromise from 1787 it could use some fine tuning since in theory we have no more slaves since 1863.
Kind of off-topic but... From what I've read, farmers in Indiana and other northern states looked down on those who owned slaves because they didn't effectively operate and own their own land - I believe it was more of a sense of pride, perhaps patriotism. The confederate flag was also used as propaganda for political purposes way back during that time.
How has Indiana become so sideways and dumb? People in Colorado (I'm sure all over the US) waive the Confederate flag and Colorado wasn't even a state during that time.
This is an overly simplistic view of the electoral college.
Also, direct democracy was never seriously considered for presidential elections.
We're elitist because we're educated.
Do not worry though. I do not consider you elite.
Why did elected Repub reps attack the educated as elitist-outsiders during the impeachment trial? This is just a general question and not assuming you or anyone else responding is one party or another.
Having lived in Colorado not all that long ago, I invite you to flesh out your comment about the Confederate flag. I lived north of the Denver area, so perhaps it relates to a less prominent location.
because the pubes have created a base that votes against its own interest , they fill them with guns, patriotism and other bogeymen to gain their favor. look up the michigan protestors
Here’s a pretty good synopsis.
https://lawliberty.org/no-the-electoral-college-was-not-about-slavery/
You notice that site downplays Madison's quote on the issue, but does not display the quote. There is a reason for this. Here is the quote:
The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.
The EC allowed for the slaves to count 3/5s toward the president without them getting to vote. There are very few ways to get people's votes counted without them voting. The EC gave them just that.
There is some malarkey about small states. Look how many small state presidents we have had, 3. There clearly is no small state advantage. Look at how many early presidents were from Virginia, the biggest state of the time.
Slavery played a big role. But it was not the only factor. But clearly southern states wanted blacks to vote to keep slavery without actually allowing them to vote. The EC and 3/5s played a big role in doing just that. No emancipator could win, even Lincoln was not an emancipator until forced.
Not too well versed on the reality of US History, are we? The EC was a compromise that the rest of the states agreed to in order to get Va, Ga, and The Carolinas on board with the whole Constitution thingy. See a significant portion of the population in those states were Black slaves. If elections were one man one vote then those states faced a huge dilemma. They wanted their entire population to count, but they did not want their entire population to actually VOTE.
The EC allowed them a mechanism to count ALL the people in their state (when it came to allocating EC votes), and keep all those Black folks who counted in the actual population totals from actually VOTING. This whole "protecting the states with smaller populations" nonsense ignores the fact that the smallest states were Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Delaware. Virginia was actually the LARGEST colony in size and in population as well, when you counted the slaves. Va was the most powerful colony and the slaveholding states were also the wealthiest.
And you think the EC "protected" the smaller states? Up until the years preceding the Civil War, VA was the largest state, and 7 out of the first 12 POTUS were Virginians. That changes after the Civil War when larger states were added, and the 8th POTUS from Virginia didn't come until Woodrow Wilson. Nobody envisioned Calif or Texas when the EC was being debated- this idea that it was invented as a protection mechanism to "protect small states" is nonsense and basically revisionist history.
Yeah, it’s similar to Indiana. You don’t see it in Indy (Denver), but move south and/or west you’ll see it quite a bit. Don’t know about the eastern planes though. But I pretty much see it any time I travel past the front range. It’s everywhere.
Well, that's certainly the Libertarian (Liberty Fund) viewpoint. Doesn't exactly qualify it as a "good synopsis"...
In fact, until 1913 (17th Amendment), U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures, not by voters.
I think an accurate way to put it would be this: Slavery is not the reason we have the Electoral College, but it is the reason we don't have a national popular vote.
That sounds fair. And the "small states" issue was a diversion. Virginia was the largest state. Why would Virginia become altruistic and care about Georgia's influence? There was one issue why Virginia cared.
I don't think it's quite that simple. The states/Colonies were seen as the seat of governmental power. All other governments and corporations were, and still are, creatures of state government or political subdivisions of state government. There are no political subdivisions of the federal government. States possess plenary power to govern, not the federal government. All federal government elected officials are in the state hands. While slavery was indeed an issue, I think the guiding principle of the federal government was to maintain state sovereignty. After all, the federal government is a creature of the state government. The constitution was intended to "form a more perfect union" of states. States, acting through a convention to this day have the power and authority to dissolve the federal government and create a new one.
Things didn't change until Lincoln. In many ways Lincoln was the real founding father and the 14th Amendment is the founding document of today's government. I've often thought of what Lincoln would do with the EC if he had his choice. I think he would have kept it. But that is for a different thread.
And if we didn't have such corrupt Gerrymandering it wouldn't be such a problem.
You don't need to prove how uneducated you are. We already know that! Read your post!
State supremacy has everything to do with the EC. The common citizen had allegiance to their respective colony/state. I expect we will hear a lot more about this next Wednesday.
Not true. They rejected letting state legislatures select the president. They rejected giving states recall power. They wanted the president to be elected by the people, not the states. That's why the original plan was for Congress to do it. The EC came about because congressional selection threatened separation of powers. State supremacy had nothing to do with it.
Without the EC you'd have no reason to vote in November if you live in a lesser populated state. Without the EC Presidential candidates (and the Presidents) wouldn't even bother paying lip service to, much less care about, the issues of states other than the 10 or so largest ones and large cities. They wouldn't need to care about small states and they'd be looking for votes only in heavily populated states and cities. The EC is genius. I've thought so since I first learned about it as a kid and have never seen a good reason to change my mind. Long live the EC.
it's beyond naive to think everything in the Constitution is in it because the majority of the founding fathers thought it the best policy.
the EC and 2 senators per state are far more likely to be due to extortion by the smaller states, who leveraged their initial disproportionate voting stock position into 250 yrs of totally disproportionate power of smaller states, many many times the original disproportion.
not everything in the Constitution was the vision of the founding fathers.
some things were forced on them by the smaller states with disproportionate power at the time..
that said, back in the days the Constitution was written, different states had their own economies and media, and were days to weeks travel from or even communicate with one another.
today the whole country is one economy with a shared media, and NY communicating or doing business with Wyoming today, is like Boston doing business with Cambridge Mass, and someone communicating with someone across the room, back in the founder's day.
politics is all that separates the states today, whereas back in the day, they were different entities on a whole different level.
Last edited:
You have that exactly backwards. Only a national popular vote incentivizes all voters to show up. With the EC, anyone not in a swing state doesn't matter.Without the EC you'd have no reason to vote in November if you live in a lesser populated state. Without the EC Presidential candidates (and the Presidents) wouldn't even bother paying lip service to, much less care about, the issues of states other than the 10 or so largest ones and large cities. They wouldn't need to care about small states and they'd be looking for votes only in heavily populated states and cities. The EC is genius. I've thought so since I first learned about it as a kid and have never seen a good reason to change my mind. Long live the EC.
State supremacy is baked in the constitutional cake. The 10th is confirmation.
So you say, but it still has nothing to do with the Electoral College. The founders specifically pressed against state power when designing the national executive. The EC was about preserving separation of power between the federal branches, not between the national and state governments.
One of the weakness of the Articles of Confideration was the lack of an executive branch. The founders solved that issue within the overall context of the constitution which embidies state supremacy.
Similar threads
