Electoral College debate

[nacixems]

What do you mean he didn't win the popular vote? He received 1.8 million votes. Douglas, in second place, received 1.3 million votes.

He won the popular vote. He received more votes than any other candidate. That's the popular vote contest.

The belief that the electoral college helped end slavery is just incredibly dishonest.

maybe in your view, but just because you think its dishonest. does not make it so. . sorry.

[TZucchini]

maybe in your view, but just because you think its dishonest. does not make it so. . sorry.

Do you agree that Lincoln won the popular vote?

[nacixems]

Do you agree that Lincoln won the popular vote?

Here is a quote from the link. I dont think he is really addressing it only that he did'nt win like 51% but less than 40% showing how the EC had a large affect on the election of that time. I dont think anything in that statement is dishonest. go make a post about popular vote and we will have that debate.

If anything, it was the Electoral College that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the Electoral College.

[Independent voter]

Lincoln won two elections I think.

[Machismo]

The EC is affirmative action, plain and simple. It's fundamentally no different than the government making someone hire a black person, because they are "disasvantaged."

[TZucchini]

Here is a quote from the link. I dont think he is really addressing it only that he did'nt win like 51% but less than 40% showing how the EC had a large affect on the election of that time. I dont think anything in that statement is dishonest. go make a post about popular vote and we will have that debate.

"Lincoln earned only 39% of the popular vote...but won a crushing victory in the EC."

Well guess what, Lincoln also won a crushing victory in the popular vote! So the popular vote is just as responsible for ending slavery as is the EC. Yet he places all emphasis on the EC. That's dishonest.

[LaserSharkDFB]

maybe in your view, but just because you think its dishonest. does not make it so. . sorry.

How exactly would you define 'winning the popular vote', then? Most people would define it as 'getting more votes than their opponents', but you apparently have a different metric.

[Zmaniac17]

he beat Douglas by 10% but did not win the popular vote, its all how you measure it, read the whole thing, it shows how its not about the popular vote but about the EC. Bell and Breckinridege got more EC than Douglas but he had more vote. I guess u just dont really want to see it for what it is, but for only what you have already got your mind made up to be. shameful..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_1860

Disregarding how the EC had an effect on the election of Lincoln, it seems ridiculous to say "the system is good because it elected someone that I like". Which is basically what you're saying by making this argument.

The system disenfranchises millions of voters and ultimately leaves the decision up to a few un-elected officials who are not bound by any laws to vote for who was chosen. If you want your vote to count you have to move to a swing state and live in the right district. That is voting in the EC.

This is how we should vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI - Single Transferable Vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

[Machismo]

The OP tried to come in with an agenda, and got bitch slapped by his own facts.

[schwank05]

I've been against the electoral college long before this election. I think the people who support it when it works in their favor and are suddenly against it when it doesn't are being ridiculous. I personally think that it should be decided by the majority the way many other countries elect their leaders. That said, I don't see it changing any time soon.

The biggest problem with that is then us in middle America, you know the ones that actually produce necessary items such as food and the like have no say because we are far less populated. So then all that matters is the Cesspools that are the major US cities like New York, LA and all the other major cities. Its clear to see that Popular vote is a joke when looking at a state such as Mine by vote results and see only the Major cities voted for Hillary, but 80% of the states mass voted Trump. She only focused or cared about the large populations, but Trump cared or at least pretended to care about small town America. We always expect all presidents to be lying through their teeth 90% of the time, but she didn't even try to Lie to us she completely ignored us so we said Fuck off and voted not really for Trump, but rather against Hillary.

[alexw]

Sorry, i guess your right cause u just called something Bull#### wow, thats so deep, i dont know where to begin.

Well I am right. Its obviously bullshit. It doesn't take much effort at all to find that out.

The federalist papers make it very clear that it was the senate that was designed to act as the voice of the minority by giving them an outsized say. Its why New York has the same number of senators as Wyoming.

From federalist paper 62.

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . .

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. . . .

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may, in some instances, be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favour of the smaller states, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other states, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger

The electoral college by contrast was written as a compromise with the south to protect slavery. Since African Americans could not vote in the south a popular vote system would always give the presidency to a northern politician. Thus the electoral college system was installed which allowed the south to use slaves in tallying up their electoral college votes, where those slaves could not themselves be allowed to vote by the south for obvious reasons. Its why the constitution talked about slaves as 3/5 of a person in terms of voting representation.

Here is what Madison said on the subject of popular vote vs electoral college -

“The right of suffrage is 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.”

It's why in the first 36 years since the founding a white southern slaveholder held the presidency for 32 of those years. The south would never have accepted a popular vote system which is what the north actually wanted.

So again I ask, if you wanted people to understand why the electoral college was created then why did you post an article from townhall that is a total load of BS? How does posting bullshit help people understand anything?

[nacixems]

The biggest problem with that is then us in middle America, you know the ones that actually produce necessary items such as food and the like have no say because we are far less populated. So then all that matters is the Cesspools that are the major US cities like New York, LA and all the other major cities. Its clear to see that Popular vote is a joke when looking at a state such as Mine by vote results and see only the Major cities voted for Hillary, but 80% of the states mass voted Trump. She only focused or cared about the large populations, but Trump cared or at least pretended to care about small town America. We always expect all presidents to be lying through their teeth 90% of the time, but she didn't even try to Lie to us she completely ignored us so we said Fuck off and voted not really for Trump, but rather against Hillary.

you make a good point, but I'm not sure if they actually care, most of the left seem to result to insults and name calling or yelling louder. seems only a few have attempted to have a meaningful discussion, rather than to just yell and scream their own agendas.. so sad, ..

[Scathbais]

What do you mean he didn't win the popular vote? He received 1.8 million votes. Douglas, in second place, received 1.3 million votes.

He won the popular vote. He received more votes than any other candidate. That's the popular vote contest.

The belief that the electoral college helped end slavery is just incredibly dishonest.

He won a plurality of the vote, not a majority of the vote. Most people wanted someone else according to popular vote.

Now according to the Constitution, since no one won the majority of EC votes, the house of representatives could have chosen any of the candidates to be President.

[alexw]

What do you mean he didn't win the popular vote? He received 1.8 million votes. Douglas, in second place, received 1.3 million votes.

He won the popular vote. He received more votes than any other candidate. That's the popular vote contest.

The belief that the electoral college helped end slavery is just incredibly dishonest.

It's even more so than that. The whole point of the EC was to enable the south to keep slavery. It allowed them outsized power relative to the voting population as slaves could not vote. By contrast a popular vote system would have meant the south never winning the presidency.

[Scathbais]

The electoral college by contrast was written as a compromise with the south to protect slavery. Since African Americans could not vote in the south a popular vote system would always give the presidency to a northern politician. Thus the electoral college system was installed which allowed the south to use slaves in tallying up their electoral college votes, where those slaves could not themselves be allowed to vote by the south for obvious reasons.

Here is what Madison said on the subject of popular vote vs electoral college -



It's why in the first 36 years since the founding a white southern slaveholder held the presidency for 32 of those years.

So again I ask, if you wanted people to understand why the electoral college was created then why did you post an article from townhall that is a total load of BS? How does posting bullshit help people understand anything?

You completely don't get why the 3/5th rule was put in place do you? That is why you sound so angry I guess. The south wanted slaves counted as a whole person. Now there were more slaves than whites in the south I believe, so counting slaves as one whole person would actually allow slavery to perpetuate.

Our founding fathers realized that the only way to eliminate slavery was to take voting power away from the southern states by limiting a slave to 3/5th of a white persons vote.

What the OP posted is correct. Our founding fathers didn't view the country as one state under central rule, but as a Federation of states where each state had a say in all aspects of government from the legislative to the election of the President. The EC ensures that each state has a say in the election process.

[alexw]

Here is a quote from the link. I dont think he is really addressing it only that he did'nt win like 51% but less than 40% showing how the EC had a large affect on the election of that time. I dont think anything in that statement is dishonest. go make a post about popular vote and we will have that debate.

That is just nonsense. The electoral college gave slave states outsized power because it allowed them to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for the electoral college. In a popular vote system those slaves would never have been counted in any way. I.e. the electoral college made it possible for slavery to continue to exist, the exact opposite of what that BS article is saying.

[Daelak]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...avery-n2264345

Wanted to revisit this, as I sense some still want to dismiss it as how we elect presidents. This shows how it worked to elect a pres. that many see as the main person who fought to abolish slavery..

The electoral college was a concession from New England and Midland regions of the country, because the deep south was snivelling and moaning about not having enough representation because they were literal overlords of hundreds of thousands of black slaves and poor appalachian whites who's exclusion from counting in their population would reduce their numbers in the house.

Fast forward to the years before the civil war and you see that the south had outsized influence (this was the first time, we are currently living in the 2nd souther era) in the federal government because of the electoral college and 3/5th compromise. They were pushing west to ensure ALL states past the Mississippi were to become slave states so they could overwhelm the federal system and bring about a literal one slave-state plutocracy and nullify any civil/human rights for non-whites and non-land holders. Fortunately for both the rest of the US states, New England, Midlanders, and the Appalachian regions of the country denied the disgusting slave-lord/white supremacy culture of the south to push beyond Eastern Texas, which forced the Deep South to become even more arrogant and attack federal forces in South Carolina.

They could of have their successful secession and confederation of deep southern slave states if they weren't so arrogant (which there entire culture and belief system is congruent on, arrogance of white supremacy), because New England, Midlanders, and the Appalachian regions were already pushing farther west; but they were greedy and wanted to invoke a provocation from the federal government to use as a propaganda piece to rally illiterate deep southerners and Appalachian people to fight their war for a continental slave state.

[Zmaniac17]

The biggest problem with that is then us in middle America, you know the ones that actually produce necessary items such as food and the like have no say because we are far less populated. So then all that matters is the Cesspools that are the major US cities like New York, LA and all the other major cities. Its clear to see that Popular vote is a joke when looking at a state such as Mine by vote results and see only the Major cities voted for Hillary, but 80% of the states mass voted Trump. She only focused or cared about the large populations, but Trump cared or at least pretended to care about small town America. We always expect all presidents to be lying through their teeth 90% of the time, but she didn't even try to Lie to us she completely ignored us so we said Fuck off and voted not really for Trump, but rather against Hillary.

No one wants to be ignored. But small special interest groups with large influence are a massive drain on the system. And that is what you're describing. You're over estimating your own importance and under estimating the importance of the "Cesspools" as you say. The reality is the city is where you go to find work. There is not many farming jobs available. And there will be even less in the future. The U.S. is so spread out because gasoline has been cheap relative to household incomes.

You're asking to be favored based on your location. If nothing else this sounds completely arbitrary and unfair. We're limiting our ability to function as a society when people in entrenched positions block progress in the face of the majority interest. I'm not saying we should ignore minority groups. But we should be reasonable. The Electoral College is not reasonable.






http://www.vox.com/a/explain-food-america

[nacixems]

The electoral college was a concession from New England and Midland regions of the country, because the deep south was snivelling and moaning about not having enough representation because they were literal overlords of hundreds of thousands of black slaves and poor appalachian whites who's exclusion from counting in their population would reduce their numbers in the house.

Fast forward to the years before the civil war and you see that the south had outsized influence (this was the first time, we are currently living in the 2nd souther era) in the federal government because of the electoral college and 3/5th compromise. They were pushing west to ensure ALL states past the Mississippi were to become slave states so they could overwhelm the federal system and bring about a literal one slave-state plutocracy and nullify any civil/human rights for non-whites and non-land holders. Fortunately for both the rest of the US states, New England, Midlanders, and the Appalachian regions of the country denied the disgusting slave-lord/white supremacy culture of the south to push beyond Eastern Texas, which forced the Deep South to become even more arrogant and attack federal forces in South Carolina.

They could of have their successful secession and confederation of deep southern slave states if they weren't so arrogant (which there entire culture and belief system is congruent on, arrogance of white supremacy), because New England, Midlanders, and the Appalachian regions were already pushing farther west; but they were greedy and wanted to invoke a provocation from the federal government to use as a propaganda piece to rally illiterate deep southerners and Appalachian people to fight their war for a continental slave state.

Thanks, need to read some more and digest this. . great comment.

[alexw]

You completely don't get why the 3/5th rule was put in place do you? That is why you sound so angry I guess. The south wanted slaves counted as a whole person. Now there were more slaves than whites in the south I believe, so counting slaves as one whole person would actually allow slavery to perpetuate.

Our founding fathers realized that the only way to eliminate slavery was to take voting power away from the southern states by limiting a slave to 3/5th of a white persons vote.

What the OP posted is correct. Our founding fathers didn't view the country as one state under central rule, but as a Federation of states where each state had a say in all aspects of government from the legislative to the election of the President. The EC ensures that each state has a say in the election process.

WTF? How do slaves get a whole vote in a popular vote system? Please do explain how this works. Please explain how slaves get to vote.

The EC was put in place to protect slavery. And no. The EC was not about eliminating slavery. It didn't take power away from southern states, it gave them outsized power. The more slaves they had, the more african american's they enslaved, and the less they lost to escape or due to being freed, the greater their political power. If the founding fathers wanted to end slavery then they would have forced through a popular vote system. That would have ended slavery on day one.