Electoral college

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOEBIALEK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stevegravy said:
The anti 17th amendment folks were pretty prescient but not persuasive. Couldn’t beet the idea of common folks power grab and voting themselves goodies from the public treasury.
Click to expand...
As H L Mencken said, ‘Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods’. It’s impossible at this point to roll things back. That isn’t to say the nature of government won’t change. It will but it will be a change of the system from without and not from within.
 
=oldcelt;14368796]Absolute non-starter because of gerrymandering. The right/GOP knows that they can’t win if popular vote is reflected in any way…even percentage appropriation. The district idea was attempted here in PA and slammed to the ground because it was such an obvious ploy to take further advantage of partisan gerrymandering. The people rose up.
Click to expand...
As if gerrymandering is unknown to Democrats/progressives. :rolleyes:
The second president in 20 years to lose the popular vote, this time by nearly 2%, will keep this Madisonian/slavery anachronism in the public mind. Changes that more closely approximate the pv are inevitable, IMO
Click to expand...
One thing this particular election has brought to the fore, is that progressives/Democrats, when they have nothing to use to defend their position, turn to the use of identity politics - slavery, racism, sexism, et.al. Then again, progressives have always done so, as 20th century Europe demonstrates.

There is no slavery component involved in the electoral college. The electoral college is a constitutional process of the states electing the president of the United States. The states designed and ratified the constitution, and process of federalism is vital to protecting individual rights, something progressives seem to have taken a dim view of recently.

Again, I expect the cry to come up to dissolve the senate because it isn’t “democratic” enough (why should North Dakota get the same number of senators as North Carolina?). There are already some calls to dissolve the states!
I will give progressives credit for one thing, they’ve done a great job of using their control of public schools to keep Americans ignorant of their own governmental system.

Woodrow Wilson claimed he wanted to make the world safe for democracy. We should be trying to keep the world safe** from** democracy.
 
The dumbing down of America is progressing. Evidence by this "Madisonian/slavery anachronism " comment.

The country never would have coalesced behind a constitution that didn’t protect the rights of small states from being trampled by the larger ones. The electoral collage was one of several compromises that permitted the constitution passage. To say the college is a vesicle of slavery is just pain wrong. It allowed buy in by the smaller states, the same as the two senators a state. It was a compromise between large and small states pure and simple

The coaxing of the slave states was the 3/5 compromise. This gave the small white population of the heavily slaved states, extra muscle in the House of Representatives. I think at the time all states practiced some form of slavery, It became a problem when abolitionist started to achieve banning of slavery in northern states.
 
exnihilo said:
As H L Mencken said, ‘Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods’. It’s impossible at this point to roll things back. That isn’t to say the nature of government won’t change. It will but it will be a change of the system from without and not from within.
Click to expand...
👍
 
stevegravy said:
The dumbing down of America is progressing. Evidence by this "Madisonian/slavery anachronism " comment.

The country never would have coalesced behind a constitution that didn’t protect the rights of small states from being trampled by the larger ones. The electoral collage was one of several compromises that permitted the constitution passage. To say the college is a vesicle of slavery is just pain wrong. It allowed buy in by the smaller states, the same as the two senators a state. It was a compromise between large and small states pure and simple

The coaxing of the slave states was the 3/5 compromise. This gave the small white population of the heavily slaved states, extra muscle in the House of Representatives. I think at the time all states practiced some form of slavery, It became a problem when abolitionist started to achieve banning of slavery in northern states.
Click to expand...
Try reading Madison before making inane statements. Who has been dumbed down is definitely an open question.
At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “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 Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
Click to expand...
 
oldcelt said:
Try reading Madison before making inane statements. Who has been dumbed down id definitely an open question.

But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14369164
Click to expand...
Umm, the 3/5 aspect of the constitution has long since been eliminated.

Like it or not, slavery was an issue then. Compromises were made even into the 1850’s about it. But the EC has always been related to limiting the power of the central government l, and a healthy distrust of direct democracy, but because it is always used by tyrants against the rights of the individual.
 
JonNC said:
As if gerrymandering is unknown to Democrats/progressives. :rolleyes:

One thing this particular election has brought to the fore, is that progressives/Democrats, when they have nothing to use to defend their position, turn to the use of identity politics - slavery, racism, sexism, et.al. Then again, progressives have always done so, as 20th century Europe demonstrates.

There is no slavery component involved in the electoral college. The electoral college is a constitutional process of the states electing the president of the United States. The states designed and ratified the constitution, and process of federalism is vital to protecting individual rights, something progressives seem to have taken a dim view of recently.

Again, I expect the cry to come up to dissolve the senate because it isn’t “democratic” enough (why should North Dakota get the same number of senators as North Carolina?). There are already some calls to dissolve the states!
I will give progressives credit for one thing, they’ve done a great job of using their control of public schools to keep Americans ignorant of their own governmental system.

Woodrow Wilson claimed he wanted to make the world safe for democracy. We should be trying to keep the world safe** from** democracy.
Click to expand...
Buckle up…it’s going to be a bumpy ride for us all.
 
JonNC said:
Yes, I suspect that the republic, individual rights, limited government, etc will now be under an all-out assault by the progressive authoritarian movement.
Click to expand...
Well…who is the authoritarian group? Very debatable…but I agree that an all-out assault from progressive/liberal/moderates/libertarians, etal, is very likely. The solid majority won’t go quietly this time around, IMO.
 
stevegravy said:
The coaxing of the slave states was the 3/5 compromise. This gave the small white population of the heavily slaved states, extra muscle in the House of Representatives. I think at the time all states practiced some form of slavery, It became a problem when abolitionist started to achieve banning of slavery in northern states.
Click to expand...
The 3/5 compromise was actually a way to REDUCE the power held by the slave states.
 
zz912 said:
The 3/5 compromise was actually a way to REDUCE the power held by the slave states.
Click to expand...
By assigning representatives in the house and the EC based on property that could not vote? How did that reduce their power? BTW, Jefferson beat Adams because of the extra electors granted to slave states for their chattel.
Your statement is incorrect.
 
JonNC said:
Yes, I suspect that the republic, individual rights, limited government, etc will now be under an all-out assault by the progressive authoritarian movement.
Click to expand...
Individual rights and limited government: that boat sailed a long time ago when the Supremes decided the interstate commerce clause meant everything was commerce and the Feds could govern everything.
 
oldcelt said:
Another good read: jurist.org/legacy/election2000/election/electionfink.htm

And how was this achieved? Read this intriguing story to find out.
Click to expand...
Nice revisionist story but I am not totally buying it. Grant the 3/5th thingy and the EC made the southern states more influential then their white population would allow, based strictly on whiteness I don’t see Rhode Island and the other smaller states approving the constitution with out some muscle in the say over how they were going to be governed.

Anyway in a country where the president has a pen and a phone and can ignore judicial and legislative oversight what does it matter.
 
oldcelt said:
Well…who is the authoritarian group? Very debatable…but I agree that an all-out assault from progressive/liberal/moderates/libertarians, etal, is very likely. The solid majority won’t go quietly this time around, IMO.
Click to expand...
The authoritarians are usually progressives. From fascism to communism, socialist all .
Constitutional conservatives are quite prepared to defend liberty, however, even if the president elect turns out to be a progressive plant
 
stevegravy said:
Individual rights and limited government: that boat sailed a long time ago when the Supremes decided the interstate commerce clause meant everything was commerce and the Feds could govern everything.
Click to expand...
Maybe an article 5 convention is the answer. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top