0 members (),
23
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,587
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I strongly believe that the Electoral College is one of the things that makes our Constitution the greatest political/legal document ever written. Do you have an example of how the electoral college has produced a superior (above average at least) leader for the United States? How about any tangible benefit? The purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. That is the responsibility of the American voters. It's purpose to balance the power of states with small populations against those with large populations. let me put this succinctly: You're wrong. I'll put it another way: you're wrong. To be fair... well, you're still wrong. The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. What is the Electoral College? (US archives). The original purpose of the Electoral College was to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation. Electoral College (History.com). (Emphasis mine). By elevating a minor consideration to the principle purpose of the EC, you are distorting the actual history and substance of the compromise.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
substance of your post by listing the history of the Democrats stealing elections. Got any modern examples, say in the past 30 years? I have a bunch of GOP election thefts. Like Kris Korbach, I can nary find a Dem election theft. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
[quote=Senator Hatrack]Without the Electoral College the votes of the people in about 1/3 of the states would not count. Without the EC would we would have one person, one vote. Everyone's vote would count, but you Conservatives don't want everyone's vote to count.  One of the reasons our Constitution was written was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Then to win a Presidential election all a candidate would have to do is campaign in the states with large populations. The candidates could and would ignore states with small populations. That's exactly how its done now with an eye towards the EC. Presidential candidates do spend more time in states with large population. Without the Electoral College they could completely ignore all of the small states. They can't do that with the Electoral College. The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country. Doesn't that defeat your "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" argument. I'm not buying what you're selling, sir.  No, it does not. It actually reinforces the fact that our government is a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy the majority can and does tyrannize the minority. Republicans stealing elections? Would that be like the 1960 election that JFK stole? We don't need to go back in time 60 years, all we have to do is look at 2018. Wrong again. I even used your liberal source SLATE to prove you are wrong. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...rams-brian-kemp-election-not-stolen.html I'm going to challenge you again, friend. It's apparent you read the title, but not the substance, of the article. If you had, you wouldn't have linked it, as it undermines your argument.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country." The idea behind the EC was to bring slave states into the Union. This is where the 5/8 clouting of black male slaves came from.  This is another example of your ignorance pdx rick. It was the 3/5 compromise not the 5/8 compromise. That compromise was not made to get the Electoral College into our Constitution. That sad and unfortunate compromise was, very reluctantly, made in order to get our Constitution written and ratified. Before our Constitution was even thought of Virginia (the colony with the most slaves) wrote the Declaration of Rights, in 1775. It was written by George Mason, Robert Nicholas, the colonial treasurer, and James Madison, all three were slave owners yet they debated the issue of slavery. All three of them believed that slavery was a dying institution, they just didn't know how to kill it. George Mason who is consider the "Father of the Bill of Rights" said this about slavery. "As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union." "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind." We don't have slavery any longer - much to most modern Conservative's chagrin.  That comment is an insult to and a lie about Conservatives.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
A couple of additional, and short points: First, a "constitutional republic" and a "representative democracy" are the same thing. Full stop. Conservative commentators like to run out that phrase as if it means something special and refutes the United States being a "democracy." That is rhetorical legerdemain. When the founders used the phrase "republic" they meant "representative democracy" - "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." See Webster. Sounds like democracy, doesn't it? What this trick is intended to do is obfuscate and confuse. What is usually intended is to create confusion about the United States as a federation, elevating the interests of States over the central government, which is both historically and functionally inaccurate (in short, deceptive). [It also conveniently replaces "democrat"ic with "republic"an.] The Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had a weak central government dominated by individual colonies, and was universally considered unworkable. The new Constitution created a strong, indeed, " Supreme", central government. That is the reality these commentators wish to hide. Second, the principle purpose of the EC was not to thwart the "plan of the convention". It was intended to create a workable mechanism to establish an Executive that represented all of the people of the United States, and NOT the parochial interests of the constituent States. At the time universal suffrage was neither practical nor desirable. That is why the "college" meets in the different States the reports to Congress. Travel, even communicating, was incredibly slow. As with all other aspects of the Constitution and the preferences of its adopters, it was created as a representative constituency, not as a functionary of individual State interests.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
"The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country." The idea behind the EC was to bring slave states into the Union. This is where the 5/8 clouting of black male slaves came from.  This is another example of your ignorance pdx rick. It was the 3/5 compromise not the 5/8 compromise... 5/8...3/5...meh - the fact remains that the EC is very much tied to slavery. Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.
...
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 [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.” 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.
...
If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency. We don't have slavery any longer - much to most modern Conservative's chagrin.  That comment is an insult to and a lie about Conservatives. 1870s Klan Members and 1930s Jim Crow writing Conservative Southern Democrats would disagree with you. What's that thing about conserving the past? 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 8,095 Likes: 135 |
Wikipedia articles are not credible sources. This has long been a conservative meme. Why? Mostly because when conservatives write/edit articles they typically use highly biased opinion pieces as credible sources. Sorry but breitbart, drudge, newsmax, etc are not credible sources. But if you really believe it, then point out the errors and edit them. I mean it is apparently well known Mr Trump lies as a matter of fact but all of his surrogates deny he ever lies. Now I can't tell if they are stupid, ignorant, or are under a spell, but one thing is certain, they lie for Mr Trump. Now don't get me wrong (as I know you have already done) wiki admits their articles are only as good as the credibility and honesty of the people editing articles.
ignorance is the enemy without equality there is no liberty America can survive bad policy, but not destruction of our Democratic institutions
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
You are taking my reply to logtroll about the Electoral College out of context. As James Madison said "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." That is why I said the purpose of the Electoral College is not to produce superior leaders. The purpose of the Electoral College is, as your links state and I wholeheartedly agree, to balance the power of small states against the power of the big states.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Wikipedia articles are not credible sources. This has long been a conservative meme. Why? Mostly because when conservatives write/edit articles they typically use highly biased opinion pieces as credible sources. Sorry but breitbart, drudge, newsmax, etc are not credible sources. But if you really believe it, then point out the errors and edit them. I mean it is apparently well known Mr Trump lies as a matter of fact but all of his surrogates deny he ever lies. Now I can't tell if they are stupid, ignorant, or are under a spell, but one thing is certain, they lie for Mr Trump. Now don't get me wrong (as I know you have already done) wiki admits their articles are only as good as the credibility and honesty of the people editing articles. Does Pres. Trump lie? Of course he does! Show a President, any President, who has not lied. I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to show me a President who hasn't lied.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I've been enjoying my ride on my high horse. The view from up here is marvelous. I can see everyone's faults. Anyone else wanna go for a canter?
|
|
|
|
|