The Electoral College Resolution

[Subduction Zone]

The EC is one flavor of democracy, which isn't some strictly
singularly defined system. It has its advantages & disadvantages
over a popular vote.

There probably is a valid advantage, but I cannot think of any off of the top of my head. I know all sorts of false claims made in its favor.

 

[Revoltingest]

There probably is a valid advantage, but I cannot think of any off of the top of my head. I know all sorts of false claims made in its favor.

Perhaps the false claims you see are valid to others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps the false claims you see are valid to others.

Nah, they are nonsense. Such as claiming that California and Texas will rule the nation. Some people are very very bad at math and reasoning.

 

[Watchmen]

I feel this is a good time to remind everyone: The Republicans have had popular support for President once since 1992. They have won three elections regardless. It is well past time that votes actually count, 1 for 1. I can see why Republicans dig their heels in here, they realize that if it was a 1 to 1 vote, they would have been voted into obscurity years ago.

You realize the results still may have favored Republican if the elections had been winner by popular vote, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You realize the results still may have favored Republican if the elections had been winner by popular vote, right?

Campaigning would be different, so it is possible. But at least that would be the clear wish of the American population. It is dubious, but possible. But at least it would be a fair and proper result.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah, they are nonsense. Such as claiming that California and Texas will rule the nation. Some people are very very bad at math and reasoning.

So only your goals are cromulent, eh.
Smaller states must agree to disagree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So only your goals are cromulent, eh.
Smaller states must agree to disagree with you.

No, I merely want to see valid objections. Not ones based upon fantasy. California does not vote as a bloc. There are both conservatives and liberals. They are not going to unite behind one candidate and be able to screw everyone else. That is just fantasy. Trying to force all voters in a state to support one idea is like herding cats. Not going to happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I merely want to see valid objections. Not ones based upon fantasy. California does not vote as a bloc. There are both conservatives and liberals. They are not going to unite behind one candidate and be able to screw everyone else. That is just fantasy. Trying to force all voters in a state to support one idea is like herding cats. Not going to happen.

I listed a couple reasons for the EC in post #13.
Note that I'm not defending it....just seeing that side of things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I listed a couple reasons for the EC in post #13.
Note that I'm not defending it....just seeing that side of things.

I know, the "pro-rural" claim. Land does not vote, people do. The EC does give excessive power to rural people over urban people. That is not necessarily a good thing. The only problem that I have is that urban people sometimes think that their rules should apply to rural areas as well, and that is not always the case.

Perhaps we need to limit who can vote on farm legislature to those that have at least ridden a steer or some other such irrelevant activity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps we need to limit who can vote on farm legislature to those that have at least ridden a steer or some other such irrelevant activity.

Perhaps require that only landowners can vote?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps require that only landowners can vote?

Hmm, there is a precedent.

 

[Miken]

Actually slaves were not counted as full citizens. If they were freed they would have been fully counted. The counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person was not an attack on black people, It was an attack on slavery. It was argued that if they were not free then counting them as votes only gives power to their masters and not to the slaves themselves.

Under the old pre-1789 Articles of Confederation, each state would pay a tax to the central government based on population, The states that opposed slavery wanted slaves counted, The slave states did not.The compromise hammered out was that a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a person for taxation purposes. When the Constitution was being written, it provided that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population as well as influencing Electoral College votes. Now the slave states wanted slaves to be counted but the non-slave states did not. The compromise reached without which the Constitution would not have been ratified was again the 3/5 rule borrowed from the old Articles of Confederation.

Knowing something about American history is often considered undesirable these days. Without looking it up does anyone know what the Articles of Association were and how they were a step toward revolution? I have a paper copy.

Those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it. Especially in school.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Under the old pre-1789 Articles of Confederation, each state would pay a tax to the central government based on population, The states that opposed slavery wanted slaves counted, The slave states did not.The compromise hammered out was that a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a person for taxation purposes. When the Constitution was being written, it provided that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population as well as influencing Electoral College votes. Now the slave states wanted slaves to be counted but the non-slave states did not. The compromise reached without which the Constitution would not have been ratified was again the 3/5 rule borrowed from the old Articles of Confederation.

Knowing something about American history is often considered undesirable these days. Without looking it up does anyone know what the Articles of Association were and how they were a step toward revolution? I have a paper copy.

Those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it. Especially in school.

Citation needed. You have it backwards as to who was for that.

 

[Miken]

Citation needed. You have it backwards as to who was for that.

Under the Articles of Confederation, tax on a state was based on population. Non-slave states wanted slaves counted so that the slave states would bear more of the tax burden. Slave states did not want slaves counted because it would mean higher taxes. Under the Constitution a bigger population meant more influence in Congress and in electing a President. Now the slave states wanted slaves counted so they could have more influence. The non-slave states wanted slaves not to be counted to keep the slave states from having more influence. How is that backwards?

Here is what I originally said:,

Under the old pre-1789 Articles of Confederation, each state would pay a tax to the central government based on population, The states that opposed slavery wanted slaves counted, The slave states did not.The compromise hammered out was that a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a person for taxation purposes. When the Constitution was being written, it provided that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population as well as influencing Electoral College votes. Now the slave states wanted slaves to be counted but the non-slave states did not. The compromise reached without which the Constitution would not have been ratified was again the 3/5 rule borrowed from the old Articles of Confederation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Under the Articles of Confederation, tax on a state was based on population. Non-slave states wanted slaves counted so that the slave states would bear more of the tax burden. Slave states did not want slaves counted because it would mean higher taxes. Under the Constitution a bigger population meant more influence in Congress and in electing a President. Now the slave states wanted slaves counted so they could have more influence. The non-slave states wanted slaves not to be counted to keep the slave states from having more influence. How is that backwards?

Here is what I originally said:,

Under the old pre-1789 Articles of Confederation, each state would pay a tax to the central government based on population, The states that opposed slavery wanted slaves counted, The slave states did not.The compromise hammered out was that a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a person for taxation purposes. When the Constitution was being written, it provided that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population as well as influencing Electoral College votes. Now the slave states wanted slaves to be counted but the non-slave states did not. The compromise reached without which the Constitution would not have been ratified was again the 3/5 rule borrowed from the old Articles of Confederation.

I know what the 3/5 rule was in the Constitution. Show me a source for the 3/5 rule in the articles of confederation. I cannot find anything that supports your claim. You should have supported it when challenged.

 

[Miken]

I know what the 3/5 rule was in the Constitution. Show me a source for the 3/5 rule in the articles of confederation. I cannot find anything that supports your claim. You should have supported it when challenged.

'
You seemed to be challenging who wanted it which way, which is what I addressed.

But how about this?

The three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.
Digital History

I did misspeak about it actually having been adopted in the old Articles even though I knew better, It was the reasons for the compromise I was concentrating on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually slaves were not counted as full citizens. If they were freed they would have been fully counted. The counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person was not an attack on black people, It was an attack on slavery. It was argued that if they were not free then counting them as votes only gives power to their masters and not to the slaves themselves.

I should have known about the Three-fifths Compromise. Thanks for the correction.