another reason electoral college is bad

[Cream&Crimson]

They actually spent less time worrying about the actual power of the President than people often assume, simply because they all assumed Washington would become the first President, and they were content to define the office in the broadest strokes possible, and leave it to him to define the details.

True. But they also wanted to build in this mechanism which eventually became the EC by which a future populist president would have more difficulty assuming control over the Federal government. They did concede that Washington would be POTUS and did look to him to define what that looked like to an extent.
Interesting stuff.

Debates on the executive were less about power, and more about corruption. They wanted to design the office to minimize the odds that someone would be placed there beholden to foreign or corrupt domestic influences.

This is true as well. I believe from my reading that this was a primary concern. They were worried about foreign influence almost more than anything.
And yet, here we are....

 

[UncleMark]

This is true as well. I believe from my reading that this was a primary concern. They were worried about foreign influence almost more than anything.
And yet, here we are....

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Indeed. So far SCOTUS has avoided considering the issue head on. Racial gerrymandering has been voided for clearly constitutional considerations. Political gerrymandering is a different animal because it will require consideration of whether being a Republican or Democrat is to be constitutionally protected. I don't think the court can get there.

I tried to engage the board on this issue a couple of times. Of course all that happened was the usual bullshit from the usual posters.

I believe it's one of the most urgent problems systemically that our form of government faces. I believe the Republicans have ran with Gerrymandering to an extreme. But if the shoe were on the other foot, I don't give the Dems a pass that they wouldn't have done the same thing.

This is something that needs to be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. Somehow, we need to get past this ridiculous practice, and divide Congressional boundaries on bases that don't include political affiliation. It's just silly how it works now, and so detrimental to the proper functioning of government.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

True. But they also wanted to build in this mechanism which eventually became the EC by which a future populist president would have more difficulty assuming control over the Federal government. They did concede that Washington would be POTUS and did look to him to define what that looked like to an extent.
Interesting stuff.


This is true as well. I believe from my reading that this was a primary concern. They were worried about foreign influence almost more than anything.
And yet, here we are....

It's true, they were also concerned with populism. Two of the key aspects of the EC were: that the Electors would be the best each state had to offer, and would meet together, tasked with only one duty, which they would do far removed from populist influences (I think they referred to them as the "heats" and "passions" of the populace); and that they would meet in their respective states, independent of regional or national factional influences.

Obviously, both of those admittedly genius decisions by the Convention were made obsolete in 1796, which is yet another reason to question the continued viability of the EC: it no longer accomplishes what the people who designed it intended it to accomplish.

 

[twenty02]

These are interesting academic and history discussions... but that's about it. The system ain't changing.

Dems need to find a way to broaden their appeal just incrementally in a handful of heartland states, and they wouldn't be complaining....I would argue that trends look exceedingly bad for the GOP in the future of the EC.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

It's true, they were also concerned with populism. Two of the key aspects of the EC were: that the Electors would be the best each state had to offer, and would meet together, tasked with only one duty, which they would do far removed from populist influences (I think they referred to them as the "heats" and "passions" of the populace); and that they would meet in their respective states, independent of regional or national factional influences.

Obviously, both of those admittedly genius decisions by the Convention were made obsolete in 1796, which is yet another reason to question the continued viability of the EC: it no longer accomplishes what the people who designed it intended it to accomplish.

Yeah. Really, the EC is one of the most fascinating concepts to contemplate and to study with regard to the founding of our form of government. It's one of the most abstract concepts they came up with, and is/was wrought with so much controversy that sifting through the original intent and subsequent desire by the Founders when they codified it, is truly something that one could study in depth for a long time and maybe not come away with a more clear understanding than what you might have with a fairly mainstream education on it. It's just one of the aspects of our Constitution that makes it so unique and so ground-breakingly radical at the time it was ratified. What an amazing form of government our Founders gave us! Our society should be ashamed at how we've taken it for granted so badly and just generally ignored the meaning and intent around the system of government they set up for us.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Dems need to find a way to broaden their appeal just incrementally in a handful of heartland states, and they wouldn't be complaining....I would argue that trends look exceedingly bad for the GOP in the future of the EC.

I think the EC is a trailing indicator on this point. The trends you expect to see in the EC in the future are the same trends we are already seeing in the popular vote, brought about by the same demographic changes.

Tough to say for sure, though. An argument could be made that Trumpism has bucked those trends a bit, using protectionism and nativism to bring areas of the country into play that really shouldn't be. Usually, when we discuss how the parties look against future demographics, we are always looking at the parties as they traditionally look. I'm not sure we've had enough time to predict how a fully Trumpist GOP fits into this future.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The problem with the EC is the way it sets battle lines in concrete. Right now, no Republican is going to be competitive in California, no Democrat in Kansas. As a result, no Republican is going to CA (except to fundraise to take money out and spend it elsewhere) and no Dem is going to Kansas.

This damages the brand in those states, hurting the party in all down ballot races. So California slides further left, Kansas futher right. There is zero need to pretend to give a darn about the mushy middle.

As to presidential politics itself, if there were no EC it is true no candidate would ever go to small town Kansas if the popular vote decided. But they would go to Kansas City. Think of it from the Democratic view, each trip to a city has diminishing returns. The 20th trip to LA may move the needle .01%. The first trip to KC (MO/KS) might move the needle 5%. Same for a Republican and LA. Instead of 7 battleground states getting 100% of the attention, it opens the field to 30 states, may be even more. A trip to Indy would cast a wide net across most of Indiana media wise. So a Dem would have a reason to come, which means so would a Republican.

And once in office, they would have a reason to give a darn about these otherwise non competitive states. If a candidate thinks they need a million more votes, they really will not care where they come from. If supporting corn farmers is part of a coalition to gain that million, they will support corn farmers. Right now almost no corn state is competitive, so why bother?

 

[UncleMark]

It's true, they were also concerned with populism. Two of the key aspects of the EC were: that the Electors would be the best each state had to offer, and would meet together, tasked with only one duty, which they would do far removed from populist influences (I think they referred to them as the "heats" and "passions" of the populace); and that they would meet in their respective states, independent of regional or national factional influences.

Obviously, both of those admittedly genius decisions by the Convention were made obsolete in 1796, which is yet another reason to question the continued viability of the EC: it no longer accomplishes what the people who designed it intended it to accomplish.

Thanks Goat. These two points were exactly what I was trying to get across, but you expressed them much better.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The problem with the EC is the way it sets battle lines in concrete. Right now, no Republican is going to be competitive in California, no Democrat in Kansas. As a result, no Republican is going to CA (except to fundraise to take money out and spend it elsewhere) and no Dem is going to Kansas.

This damages the brand in those states, hurting the party in all down ballot races. So California slides further left, Kansas futher right. There is zero need to pretend to give a darn about the mushy middle.

As to presidential politics itself, if there were no EC it is true no candidate would ever go to small town Kansas if the popular vote decided. But they would go to Kansas City. Think of it from the Democratic view, each trip to a city has diminishing returns. The 20th trip to LA may move the needle .01%. The first trip to KC (MO/KS) might move the needle 5%. Same for a Republican and LA. Instead of 7 battleground states getting 100% of the attention, it opens the field to 30 states, may be even more. A trip to Indy would cast a wide net across most of Indiana media wise. So a Dem would have a reason to come, which means so would a Republican.

And once in office, they would have a reason to give a darn about these otherwise non competitive states. If a candidate thinks they need a million more votes, they really will not care where they come from. If supporting corn farmers is part of a coalition to gain that million, they will support corn farmers. Right now almost no corn state is competitive, so why bother?

This is easily fixed with eliminating winner take all and going to the Nebraska plan.

National elections are simply a bad idea. Gone would be state-level POTUS campaign organizations and volunteers causing even more concentration of money, power and influence. We have no national election for anything and that’s good. One man one vote is not a sacred idea. Many countries in the world have regional tensions because of strong central authority and no regionalism or federalism. Just in the last thirty years wars have been fought and countries dissolved over regional interests. State by state popular voting for all national offices is a strength, not a weakness.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This is easily fixed with eliminating winner take all and going to the Nebraska plan.

National elections are simply a bad idea. Gone would be state-level POTUS campaign organizations and volunteers causing even more concentration of money, power and influence. We have no national election for anything and that’s good. One man one vote is not a sacred idea. Many countries in the world have regional tensions because of strong central authority and no regionalism or federalism. Just in the last thirty years wars have been fought and countries dissolved over regional interests. State by state popular voting for all national offices is a strength, not a weakness.

Why would state level organizations disappear? Anyone running a campaign to win as many votes in Indiana as possible would probably want people experienced in Hoosier politics running the campaign in Indiana.

 

[Cortez88]

Why don’t we just increase the number of Representatives? 435 is not a Constitutional number but rather one set by law, a law from 1929 I believe. This would respect the intent of the EC and also recognize the the current population shifts.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Why would state level organizations disappear? Anyone running a campaign to win as many votes in Indiana as possible would probably want people experienced in Hoosier politics running the campaign in Indiana.

“Hoosier politics” would no longer be relevant with NPV. Everything is nationalized.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Thinking about small states vs large, have you ever gone to a town of 50,000 in America and not seen a McDonalds? McDonalds doesn't really care where it sells a Big Mac at, it just wants to sell as many Big Macs as possible. It could open up 20,000 stores in NY and CA alone, but that isn't the secret to selling as many Big Macs as possible. Sure, Martinsville,Indiana is unlikely to sell as many Big Macs as a store in Manhattan, but having 1000 stores in Manhattan isn't going to have that much impact on overall Big Mac sales.

It doesn't just work for fast food, look at Chevy dealers.

If Chevy will fight to sell cars in small town America, why wouldn't a political party?

 

[Stuffshot]

Thinking about small states vs large, have you ever gone to a town of 50,000 in America and not seen a McDonalds? McDonalds doesn't really care where it sells a Big Mac at, it just wants to sell as many Big Macs as possible. It could open up 20,000 stores in NY and CA alone, but that isn't the secret to selling as many Big Macs as possible. Sure, Martinsville,Indiana is unlikely to sell as many Big Macs as a store in Manhattan, but having 1000 stores in Manhattan isn't going to have that much impact on overall Big Mac sales.

It doesn't just work for fast food, look at Chevy dealers.

If Chevy will fight to sell cars in small town America, why wouldn't a political party?

Just a wild-haired guess, but I would think a higher percentage of people in smalltown America own a car/truck (or 2 or 3) than the percentage of them that vote.

 

[mohoosier]

to bring areas of the country into play that really shouldn't be.

Please elaborate, as I’m sure you didn’t mean this as it’s stated.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

It's true, they were also concerned with populism. Two of the key aspects of the EC were: that the Electors would be the best each state had to offer, and would meet together, tasked with only one duty, which they would do far removed from populist influences (I think they referred to them as the "heats" and "passions" of the populace); and that they would meet in their respective states, independent of regional or national factional influences.

Obviously, both of those admittedly genius decisions by the Convention were made obsolete in 1796, which is yet another reason to question the continued viability of the EC: it no longer accomplishes what the people who designed it intended it to accomplish.

Yeah. Really, the EC is one of the most fascinating concepts to contemplate and to study with regard to the founding of our form of government. It's one of the most abstract concepts they came up with, and is/was wrought with so much controversy that sifting through the original intent and subsequent desire by the Founders when they codified it, is truly something that one could study in depth for a long time and maybe not come away with a more clear understanding than what you might have with a fairly mainstream education on it. It's just one of the aspects of our Constitution that makes it so unique and so ground-breakingly radical at the time it was ratified. What an amazing form of government our Founders gave us! Our society should be ashamed at how we've taken it for granted so badly and just generally ignored the meaning and intent around the system of government they set up for us.

Thanks Goat. These two points were exactly what I was trying to get across, but you expressed them much better.

Why don’t we just increase the number of Representatives? 435 is not a Constitutional number but rather one set by law, a law from 1929 I believe. This would respect the intent of the EC and also recognize the the current population shifts.

i love how beyond naive everyone is, or is pretending to be.

perhaps we should also interpret how not letting women or minorities or non wealthy enough people vote, was actually done to ensure something virtuous and noble and 5D chess level brilliant, to ensure righteousness and democratic values as well, and of course, not at all to concentrate power in the hands of the very same rich white males, who were making the rules that only rich white males could vote..

or how nothing screams "freedom" like slavery, it's just that it's too complex in it's workings for most people to grasp, so they incorrectly interpret it as something other than in the name of freedom, due to their inability to understand the complexity of it's brilliance..

meanwhile, back in the real world.

those from small states who had the same vote as those from populous states, and became the needed swing votes, leveraged that one time very disproportionate to their numbers power, into perpetual disproportionate to their numbers power, as much as they could, because they could, and that's what people with power who want to maintain as much power as they can, do.

and people with power and money, always want to maintain as much power and money as they can.

and the EC, just further concentrates power from all rich white males, into a few rich white males per state. (probably often the richest).

human nature is what it is.

everyone here either assumes, or pretends to assume, that those with the money and power back then behaved totally different than those with money and power today behave.

don't assume things that go contrary to common sense, or everything you know about people today.

and the rich people back then didn't get rich, or stay rich, by looking out for the best interests of everyone else, anymore than the very wealthy today..

were they smart and ambitious, yes.

was everything they did virtuous or noble, no.

are small states today that want to hold on to the EC and 2 senators per state regardless of population, or the party that benefits from the EC and 2 senators, doing it for noble or virtuous reasons?

no.

they do it to maintain as much power as they can.

when looking at the EC and those who made it happen, and asking why did they do it that way, sometimes the most blatantly obvious answer is the correct one.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

i love how beyond naive everyone is, or is pretending to be.

perhaps we should also interpret how not letting women or minorities or non wealthy enough people vote, was actually done to ensure something virtuous and noble and 5D chess level brilliant, to ensure righteousness and democratic values as well, and of course, not at all to concentrate power in the hands of the very same rich white males, who were making the rules that only rich white males could vote..

or how nothing screams "freedom" like slavery, it's just that it's too complex in it's workings for most people to grasp, so they incorrectly interpret it as something other than in the name of freedom, due to their inability to understand the complexity of it's brilliance..

meanwhile, back in the real world.

those from small states who had the same vote as those from populous states, and became the needed swing votes, leveraged that one time very disproportionate to their numbers power, into perpetual disproportionate to their numbers power, as much as they could, because they could, and that's what people with power who want to maintain as much power as they can, do.

and people with power and money, always want to maintain as much power and money as they can.

and the EC, just further concentrates power from all rich white males, into a few rich white males per state. (probably often the richest).

human nature is what it is.

everyone here either assumes, or pretends to assume, that those with the money and power back then behaved totally different than those with money and power today behave.

don't assume things that go contrary to common sense, or everything you know about people today.

and the rich people back then didn't get rich, or stay rich, by looking out for the best interests of everyone else, anymore than the very wealthy today..

were they smart and ambitious, yes.

was everything they did virtuous or noble, no.

are small states today that want to hold on to the EC and 2 senators per state regardless of population, or the party that benefits from the EC and 2 senators, doing it for noble or virtuous reasons?

no.

they do it to maintain as much power as they can.

when looking at the EC and those who made it happen, and asking why did they do it that way, sometimes the most blatantly obvious answer is the correct one.

Oh FFS. We're not being naive. We're just not dumb enough to imagine that there's some need to repeat ad nauseam that the world of 1789 was run by rich, white landowners for their own benefit. Nor are we arrogant enough to imagine that realizing or stating this obvious truth is profound in any way whatsoever.

What you consider to be so crucially important is for the rest of us simply a self-evident baseline that we all accept and understand. You flatter yourself in imagining that we don't keep talking about this because we don't understand it, but you have it backwards. We don't keep talking about it for the same reason we don't keep reminding each other the sky is blue. We all understand it perfectly well. You're the one who doesn't understand.

 

[UncleMark]

Just a wild-haired guess, but I would think a higher percentage of people in smalltown America own a car/truck (or 2 or 3) than the percentage of them that vote.

If got three vehicles and the wife (Canadian) doesn't vote. Case closed.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

i love how beyond naive everyone is, or is pretending to be.

perhaps we should also interpret how not letting women or minorities or non wealthy enough people vote, was actually done to ensure something virtuous and noble and 5D chess level brilliant, to ensure righteousness and democratic values as well, and of course, not at all to concentrate power in the hands of the very same rich white males, who were making the rules that only rich white males could vote..

or how nothing screams "freedom" like slavery, it's just that it's too complex in it's workings for most people to grasp, so they incorrectly interpret it as something other than in the name of freedom, due to their inability to understand the complexity of it's brilliance..

meanwhile, back in the real world.

those from small states who had the same vote as those from populous states, and became the needed swing votes, leveraged that one time very disproportionate to their numbers power, into perpetual disproportionate to their numbers power, as much as they could, because they could, and that's what people with power who want to maintain as much power as they can, do.

and people with power and money, always want to maintain as much power and money as they can.

and the EC, just further concentrates power from all rich white males, into a few rich white males per state. (probably often the richest).

human nature is what it is.

everyone here either assumes, or pretends to assume, that those with the money and power back then behaved totally different than those with money and power today behave.

don't assume things that go contrary to common sense, or everything you know about people today.

and the rich people back then didn't get rich, or stay rich, by looking out for the best interests of everyone else, anymore than the very wealthy today..

were they smart and ambitious, yes.

was everything they did virtuous or noble, no.

are small states today that want to hold on to the EC and 2 senators per state regardless of population, or the party that benefits from the EC and 2 senators, doing it for noble or virtuous reasons?

no.

they do it to maintain as much power as they can.

when looking at the EC and those who made it happen, and asking why did they do it that way, sometimes the most blatantly obvious answer is the correct one.

Yeah we’ve heard this rant for decades. It means zip. What is always missing is any argument stating how the constitution would be better if women and minorities helped write it. So have at it.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Oh FFS. We're not being naive. We're just not dumb enough to imagine that there's some need to repeat ad nauseam that the world of 1789 was run by rich, white landowners for their own benefit. Nor are we arrogant enough to imagine that realizing or stating this obvious truth is profound in any way whatsoever.

What you consider to be so crucially important is for the rest of us simply a self-evident baseline that we all accept and understand. You flatter yourself in imagining that we don't keep talking about this because we don't understand it, but you have it backwards. We don't keep talking about it for the same reason we don't keep reminding each other the sky is blue. We all understand it perfectly well. You're the one who doesn't understand.

absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

you guys kept with this discussion on why the EC is in the Constitution, with some pollyannish reasons for it.

i gave a far more plausible and realistic one.

in a debate on whether to keep the EC or not, i think a realistic understanding on why we have it in the first place is warranted.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yeah we’ve heard this rant for decades. It means zip. What is always missing is any argument stating how the constitution would be better if women and minorities helped write it. So have at it.

perhaps because then possibly women and minorities could vote, or hold office, or have all the same rights as white landholding men, or just white men, or not be slaves.

let me guess, you're neither female or a minority.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was unclear.

TL;DR: You're an arrogant idiot who thinks he's being profound, when the rest of us are really just rolling our eyes at your stupidity.

 

[Digressions]

Oh FFS. We're not being naive. We're just not dumb enough to imagine that there's some need to repeat ad nauseam that the world of 1789 was run by rich, white landowners for their own benefit. Nor are we arrogant enough to imagine that realizing or stating this obvious truth is profound in any way whatsoever.

What you consider to be so crucially important is for the rest of us simply a self-evident baseline that we all accept and understand. You flatter yourself in imagining that we don't keep talking about this because we don't understand it, but you have it backwards. We don't keep talking about it for the same reason we don't keep reminding each other the sky is blue. We all understand it perfectly well. You're the one who doesn't understand.

...speaking of the obvious. If the founding fathers had Diebold machines, would we have the EC today? How much extra time and trouble would it have been to have a true NPV in 1780?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

perhaps because then possibly women and minorities could vote, or hold office, or have all the same rights as white landholding men, or just white men, or not be slaves.

let me guess, you're neither female or a minority.

Try again.

There was obviously no 14th Amendment at that time. With only specific and limited exceptions, the national government was never intended to supersede the states. Otherwise there would be no constitution.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

...speaking of the obvious. If the founding fathers had Diebold machines, would we have the EC today? How much extra time and trouble would it have been to have a true NPV in 1780?

There were colonial elections. All they had to do was add them up. Remember suffrage was very limited.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was unclear.

TL;DR: You're an arrogant idiot who thinks he's being profound, when the rest of us are really just rolling our eyes at your stupidity.

which explains why you can never repute anything i say, but always hate my saying it, so ALWAYS just resort to to personal insults because you have nothing else to play.

and i may be arrogant, but i can back it up.

you can't, and it kills you, and you take it out on those that can.

grow up.

 

[Digressions]

There were colonial elections. All they had to do was add them up. Remember suffrage was very limited.

https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

"One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

...speaking of the obvious. If the founding fathers had Diebold machines, would we have the EC today? How much extra time and trouble would it have been to have a true NPV in 1780?

That's a good question. A cursory glance at the relevant days of debate shows me no instance of the Convention even considering that question. The ones who were opposed to a popular vote invariably rested on the argument that the people at large would not be qualified to choose the best Executive. I can't find any instance of one of the Founders actually asking whether or not it was even practically feasible.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Try again.

There was obviously no 14th Amendment at that time. With only specific and limited exceptions, the national government was never intended to supersede the states. Otherwise there would be no constitution.

why quote me if your post has zero to do with mine?

were you trying to respond to someone else?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

which explains why you can never repute anything i say, but always hate my saying it, so ALWAYS just resort to to personal insults because you have nothing else to play.

and i may be arrogant, but i can back it up.

you can't, and it kills you, and you take it out on those that can.

grow up.

LOL.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That's a good question. A cursory glance at the relevant days of debate shows me no instance of the Convention even considering that question. The ones who were opposed to a popular vote invariably rested on the argument that the people at large would not be qualified to choose the best Executive. I can't find any instance of one of the Founders actually asking whether or not it was even practically feasible.

To that, a buddy wrote his dissertation on the enlisted men of the Continental Army. It was much harder than he thought it would be, so many men were illiterate that there were few first person records.

There was no technology to make it easier, and vast sections of the country could not read the ballot if they were allowed to vote.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

To that, a buddy wrote his dissertation on the enlisted men of the Continental Army. It was much harder than he thought it would be, so many men were illiterate that there were few first person records.

There was no technology to make it easier, and vast sections of the country could not read the ballot if they were allowed to vote.

Also to that point, however, it is clear from the debates that no one considered the possibility of extending the franchise based on some universal set of rules. The franchise would only be extended so far as the states chose to extend it*. So perhaps a lot of these folks wouldn't have been eligible to vote, anyway. At any rate, the states were already familiar with organizing elections to the extent their respective franchises required. So perhaps that's why it wasn't an issue at the Convention.

* However, Madison did at one point counter the argument that Southern states would be put at a disadvantage based on their more restrictive franchises with his own argument that the Southern franchise would naturally expand "under the influence of the Republican laws introduced in the S. States, and the more rapid increase of their population."

 

[i'vegotwinners]

https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

"One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what."

the printing press had been invented.

there were newspapers.

and you didn't need to know how to read. just know someone who could.

and word of mouth existed as well.

as had "spin" been invented.

perhaps they were considered too uninformed to always vote in favor of landholding white males.

something landholding white males were more than qualified to do.

the white male landholders were obviously just looking out for the little people and women, by saving them from themselves.

perhaps the birth of trickle down economics thinking.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Also to that point, however, it is clear from the debates that no one considered the possibility of extending the franchise based on some universal set of rules. The franchise would only be extended so far as the states chose to extend it*. So perhaps a lot of these folks wouldn't have been eligible to vote, anyway. At any rate, the states were already familiar with organizing elections to the extent their respective franchises required. So perhaps that's why it wasn't an issue at the Convention.

* However, Madison did at one point counter the argument that Southern states would be put at a disadvantage based on their more restrictive franchises with his own argument that the Southern franchise would naturally expand "under the influence of the Republican laws introduced in the S. States, and the more rapid increase of their population."

Clearly there was no real effort for any type of universal suffrage. But some of that is the limitation of the day, part of it was the prejudices of the time. People in rural areas were lucky to see a newspaper. All politics was local because that is all people knew.

So having Senators chosen by elites, as CO likes, and having the president chosen by elites, made some sense. As much as we decry low information voters today, the average person has far more knowledge of what is going on. That limitation of information is not what it was.

Abigail Adams was older before she left her home county the first time. And she had wealth and privilege. We can fairly easily get information and ballots to Point Barrow, Alaska. They had no good way of getting those things to upstate NY or western Virginia.

But we are supposed to pretend that had no impact in how we were formed.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

To that, a buddy wrote his dissertation on the enlisted men of the Continental Army. It was much harder than he thought it would be, so many men were illiterate that there were few first person records.

There was no technology to make it easier, and vast sections of the country could not read the ballot if they were allowed to vote.

got it.

enlisted men were informed enough to fight to the death so the elite white men could own land and govern themselves, but not smart enough to participate themselves in what they fought to the death for.

and women weren't qualified, even if they read 100 times better than landholding white men.

many state politicians in the south still actively believe in that base thinking on who should be able to vote and who shouldn't, as those not qualified enough to suit said state politicians, might elect the wrong persons.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

why quote me if your post has zero to do with mine?

were you trying to respond to someone else?

Make you argument about how the constitution would have been different if women and blacks would have been in drafting it.

Saying “slavery and voting” says nothing. Tell me how the women and minorities would have made a difference to the document.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Make you argument about how the constitution would have been different if women and blacks would have been in drafting it.

Saying “slavery and voting” says nothing. Tell me how the women and minorities would have made a difference to the document.

how f'ing brain dead level stupid are you.

and i did.

you're just trolling at this point, though i have no idea why.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

how f'ing brain dead level stupid are you.

and i did.

you're just trolling at this point.

LOL. Women and blacks would have included an article about how the new government would have eliminated state sovereignty over voting and slavery? How would have that worked? We fought a bloody civil war to accomplish one of those things. Do you really think the war could have been avoided?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Clearly there was no real effort for any type of universal suffrage. But some of that is the limitation of the day, part of it was the prejudices of the time. People in rural areas were lucky to see a newspaper. All politics was local because that is all people knew.

So having Senators chosen by elites, as CO likes, and having the president chosen by elites, made some sense. As much as we decry low information voters today, the average person has far more knowledge of what is going on. That limitation of information is not what it was.

Abigail Adams was older before she left her home county the first time. And she had wealth and privilege. We can fairly easily get information and ballots to Point Barrow, Alaska. They had no good way of getting those things to upstate NY or western Virginia.

But we are supposed to pretend that had no impact in how we were formed.

At one point, the qualifications for election to Congress required candidates to be landowners without public debt. Morris and Madison convinced the Convention to drop these qualifications, but they both argued that such qualifications might be more properly required for the voters themselves. So even the folks we imagine to be the most forward-thinking of the bunch were very cautious about expanding the franchise too much.