Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 17, 2019

Wilfred Codrington III: Commentators today tend to downplay the extent to which race and slavery contributed to the Framers' creation of the Electoral College, in effect whitewashing history: Of the considerations that factored into the Framers' calculus, race and slavery were perhaps the foremost.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I knew before clicking this thread was posted by Race-Baiter Roma.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-17 11:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

For centuries, white votes have gotten undue weight, as a result of innovations such as poll taxes and voter-ID laws and outright violence to discourage racial minorities from voting. (The point was obvious to anyone paying attention: As William F. Buckley argued in his essay "Why the South Must Prevail," white Americans are "entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally," anywhere they are outnumbered because they are part of "the advanced race.") But America's institutions boosted white political power in less obvious ways, too, and the nation's oldest structural racial entitlement program is one of its most consequential: the Electoral College.

The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in -------. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they'd already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country's slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South's congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.

What's clear is that, more than two centuries after it was designed to empower southern whites, the Electoral College continues to do just that. The current system has a distinct, adverse impact on black voters, diluting their political power. Because the concentration of black people is highest in the South, their preferred presidential candidate is virtually assured to lose their home states' electoral votes. Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. It's the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. It's precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.

Kinda hard to argue with historical records, facts and empirical data, but I'm sure that won't stop critics from attacking each and every one of them. The article is replete with examples most of us are probably ignorant of showing how the voting power of slaves tilted electoral results in favor of their slaveholders while the same dynamics are still in play in today's southern states.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

It seems where ever racist look, they find racism.

It become the "goto" move, and is losing its cache'

The argument that slavery is racist is a poor one,

Kinda hard to argue with historical records, facts and empirical data, that every race has been held as a slave.

Question: Suppose the Electoral College ignored the slaves, meaning stated only Freemen could be counted, would that be racist?

Question: Suppose the electoral college accepted slaves, but they couldn't vote, would that be racist?

Question: Suppose the Electoral College accepted slaves, but only their masters could vote for them, would that be racist?

Question: Could it have been immensely "more racist" other ways?

Question Long Form : Design a system that includes slaves but isn't racist.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-17 11:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

To be clear don't use present day thinking .... remember when and where you are.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-17 11:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Question Long Form : Design a system that includes slaves but isn't racist.

Why? Should farm animals in the North be counted so that their owners increase their own political power? How about proportional voting based on the amount of acreage owned? Of course not. The system itself was based on a corrupt, dehumanizing premise.

The only reason this topic is considered racist is because the vast majority of slaves were of a different race than those who owned them. The slaves were property as a matter of law, not free individuals who were exercising their God-given constitutional rights as citizens of the United States.

I'm surprised the simplicity of this escapes you: Why should any electoral system allow certain individuals the right to unduly influence government because they own other individuals who - by law - are unable to express their own personal political feelings and views and are treated by these same laws as chattel property, not citizens with constitutional rights?

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

To further elaborate, slaves could be killed at the whims of their owners without any legal sanction whatsoever. What other citizens can kill other citizens with impunity? Why this political carveout?

Literally, slave owners bred their slaves to maximize their value and marketability. They could control their numbers and in practice "buy" votes if they increased the number of slaves in their holdings.

Is that consistent with the notion of "one man, one vote" that lies as the basis for democratically-held elections? You obviously haven't thought of how anti-democratic the notion of allowing owners voting power based on their property holdings unique to only slaves.

There is no democratic/republican rationale for such a system to have ever been enshrined other than the political compromises of the times based upon the then realities of trying to form our nascent republic peacefully.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Tony is right and mackris, as usual, is still an idiot.

#7 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-11-17 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"Why? Should farm animals in the North be counted so that their owners increase their own political power?"

Did you really just compare American slaves to farm animals? You are freaking awesome, Roma. ((Hint: I'm being sarcastic.))

The argument at the time for counting slaves was the same as the argument for counting women and children when determining representation in Congress. Nobody contested that slaves were human beings, albeit ones with very restricted rights.

The electoral college was linked to the number of representatives each state had in Congress. You're engaging in the classic correlation/causation fallacy by trying to extend it to how the number of reps in the House of Representatives was determined at that time.

#8 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 03:18 PM | Reply

"Did you really just compare American slaves to farm animals?"

What's the problem with this comparison?

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-17 03:19 PM | Reply

3/5 of a human being

#10 | Posted by bruceaz at 2019-11-17 03:25 PM | Reply

"The argument at the time for counting slaves was the same as the argument for counting women and children when determining representation in Congress."

I don't believe you, but what argument are you even referring to?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-17 03:25 PM | Reply

"The argument at the time for counting slaves was the same as the argument for counting women and children when determining representation in Congress."

I don't believe you, but what argument are you even referring to?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-17 03:25 PM | Reply

"To further elaborate, slaves could be killed at the whims of their owners without any legal sanction whatsoever."

Exactly the way we treat free women and children!
Completely unlike the way we treat farm animals!
--Sentinel

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-17 03:30 PM | Reply

Did you really just compare American slaves to farm animals?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Yes I certainly did because under the law they were both categories of PROPERTY; things to be owned and used at the whims of their owners. Slaves had no more rights than any other living form of property (farm animals) so the comparison is not only apt, it's exact and equal under the situation being discussed.

The argument at the time for counting slaves was the same as the argument for counting women and children when determining representation in Congress.

No it isn't. Neither women nor children could VOTE. That is the argument. Male slaves could not vote either, but their owners were allowed 3/5ths of a vote for each adult for simply possessing these men. And the only limitation to how many votes any individual owner could tally was the number of qualifying slaves he decided to own.

Again, dehumanizing, immoral, as well as anti-democratic.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 03:30 PM | Reply

And for those who don't know, Mississippi still uses a state constitutionally mandated electoral college-like system for their governor's races. Simply winning the majority of votes does not make one governor. The winner also has to win the majority of the legislative districts in the state as well, and if this threshold isn't met, the state legislature can hold their own vote and choose between the top two candidates.

Mississippi made no bones about why they enshrined this impediment to majority rule and those who voted for it pulled no punches:

A catastrophe loomed on the horizon, US Sen. James George warned a Jackson, Mississippi, audience in 1889. By 1900, George predicted, African Americans would outnumber whites by two to one. White power could be drowned in a sea of black votes. He urged a drastic solution: a new state constitution that would ensure "home government, under the control of the white people of the State."

Mississippi held a constitutional convention more than a century ago to, in the words of one former state governor and US senator, "eliminate the n***er from politics."

Almost immediately after he was elected president of Mississippi's 1890 constitutional convention, Judge Solomon Calhoon embraced George's purpose in a speech to the delegates.

"The ballot system must be so arranged as to effect one object," Calhoon proclaimed. "We find the two races now together, the rule of one of which has always meant economic and moral ruin" and the rule of the other race, the white race, "has always meant prosperity and happiness."

Thus charged, the delegates produced a comprehensively racist document. The Constitution included a poll tax intended to prevent poor African Americans from casting a ballot, a prohibition on interracial marriage, and a requirement that "separate schools shall be maintained for children of the white and colored races."

www.vox.com

Funny that when Mississppi decided to "eliminate the n****r from politics" they chose an almost identical model of a state-based electoral college.

It wasn't an accident.

#15 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 03:48 PM | Reply

"Did you really just compare American slaves to farm animals?"

American slavery treats American slaves like farm animals, much in the way that I treat you like a racist piece of ----, because that's what you are, Swastika rehabilitator.
I hope your revisionist history of slavery helps others understand the racist piece of ---- that you truly are.

Far too many people here have fallen for your "concerned liberal outsider" facade, Sentinel.
And far too many people help you perpetuate the fiction too.
But that's another story.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-17 04:41 PM | Reply

Snoofy is obviously a mentally ill poster who's been stalking and harassing other people on this site for years. I would flag his posts as abusive, which they are, but unfortunately this site does not allow me to do that while logged in because he's in my kill file.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 06:36 PM | Reply

"Snoofy is obviously a mentally ill poster..."

Sounds like something a Nazi sympathizer would say. Or a fan of slavery.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-17 06:45 PM | Reply

"No it isn't. Neither women nor children could VOTE. That is the argument. Male slaves could not vote either, but their owners were allowed 3/5ths of a vote for each adult for simply possessing these men. And the only limitation to how many votes any individual owner could tally was the number of qualifying slaves he decided to own."

It sounds like you completely misunderstand how the 3/5ths thing worked. It did not give individual slave owners the ability to cast additional votes. It was used in determining how many Representatives each state was allotted in the U.S. Congress.

"Again, dehumanizing, immoral, as well as anti-democratic."

Slavery itself was dehumanising and immoral. Trying to claim the electoral college is somehow is associated with it is just as absurd and fallacious as claiming proportionate representation in the House of Representatives is.

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 07:00 PM | Reply

#18- You what?

#20 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 07:03 PM | Reply

Trying to claim the electoral college is somehow is associated with it is just as absurd and fallacious as claiming proportionate representation in the House of Representatives is.

Proportionate representation of PROPERTY is absurd and fallacious. The fact you continue to argue otherwise shows you have no understanding nor perspective of the effect the Electoral College has as a racist (because of who it was created to enumerate as "citizens" while denying them any legal protections and freedoms given all others counted for representation) construct wholly illiberal in every aspect of its existence.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 07:07 PM | Reply

BTW, thank you for correcting my error as to the accounting of slaves as 3/5ths.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 07:35 PM | Reply

#21 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

The conundrum that lawmakers were facing at the time seems to be completely lost on you. The Abolitionists believed (rightly) that persons cannot be property. The slave holding states believed that humans could be both persons and property when it came to enumeration. By not counting them at all in representation, the North would have been effectively ceding that slaves were property and not persons. So that's why they had the 3/5ths compromise.

You cannot in any way argue that the electoral college is linked to slavery without also arguing that proportionate representation in the House is the same. I look forward to your arguments for abolishing the House of Representatives.

#23 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 07:39 PM | Reply

You cannot in any way argue that the electoral college is linked to slavery without also arguing that proportionate representation in the House is the same.

There is no need to proffer any such argument because your premise is based on sophistry not reality. Human beings are human beings, they are not property. For the sake of compromise as you note, the Founders INVENTED A FALLACY that does not exist in reality. If I can own you, end your life on a whim and face no legal sanction whatsoever for doing so, you are not a human being, you are my defacto property. If I can take your life, you have no liberty.

Human beings with no legal rights to independent life itself are not human beings under such a construct, they are the factual equivalent of property since they are owned by other human beings who claim a separate, full legal status not given to slaves. What immoral people want to claim to ameliorate their own inhumanity is irrelevant.

There is zero wrong with proportional representation in the House and everything wrong with humans owning other humans, then using their indentured existence within artificially constructed boundaries to codify even more political power while denying them all human and legal rights in the process.

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 08:03 PM | Reply

"There is no need to proffer any such argument because your premise is based on sophistry not reality."

Which premise would that be? You appear to be arguing against a straw man here.

"Human beings are human beings, they are not property. For the sake of compromise as you note, the Founders INVENTED A FALLACY that does not exist in reality. If I can own you, end your life on a whim and face no legal sanction whatsoever for doing so, you are not a human being, you are my defacto property. If I can take your life, you have no liberty."

The founders did not invent slavery. It existed prior to the founding of the United States. If you're referring to the 3/5ths thing, it was never meant by either side as a statement that individual slaves were worth 3/5ths of a person. It was just an accounting thing taken into account when determining proportionate representation for states based on their respective populations.

"Human beings with no legal rights to independent life itself are not human beings under such a construct, they are the factual equivalent of property since they are owned by other human beings who claim a separate, full legal status not given to slaves. What immoral people want to claim to ameliorate their own inhumanity is irrelevant."

We have no disagreement about the immorality of slavery. But the dilemma still seems to be lost on you. If the Abolitionists had not counted slaves at all, then the pro-slavery groups would have used that as political fodder to say "aha, see they acknowledge and endorse our construct that slaves are property, because for them it's either/or!"

"There is zero wrong with proportional representation in the House and everything wrong with humans owning other humans, then using their indentured existence within artificially constructed boundaries to codify even more political power while denying them all human and legal rights in the process."

I completely agree with this statement. And since we've established that the latter has zero relevance to proportional representation in Congress today, that logically implies it also has zero relevance to the electoral college.

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 09:05 PM | Reply

The argument that slavery is racist is a poor one,

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Still trying to wrap my head around this one.

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-17 09:13 PM | Reply

Makris, how many white people were slaves in the US?

#27 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-17 09:14 PM | Reply

"The argument that slavery is racist is a poor one,
Kinda hard to argue with historical records, facts and empirical data, that every race has been held as a slave."

I think you're confusing the argument that "slavery is racist" with a different argument. In the context of race-based slavery, it certainly is.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 09:30 PM | Reply

Kinda ironic that one of Corey Booker's ancestors, Spartacus, led a white slave army against the Roman Empire.

#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-17 09:39 PM | Reply

. If the Abolitionists had not counted slaves at all, then the pro-slavery groups would have used that as political fodder to say "aha, see they acknowledge and endorse our construct that slaves are property, because for them it's either/or!"

This is completely meaningless and I don't understand why you don't see that. It's sophistry as I stated above. The machinations the Founders made to somehow "compromise" that slaves were 3/5ths citizens should have been your first and only clue. No one is a partial human. It's lunacy.

You keep talking about politics as though it matters in a moral discussion about basic universal human rights. Politics is the basis for the immorality because outside of it no one in their right mind would say that a person from a different continent is somehow less of a human and undeserving of equal consideration under any law than another.

The basis for the Electoral College (to create a hybrid representational count for persons denied citizenship status for the sole purpose of increasing the political power of their oppressors) is immoral on its face, especially for a nation founded on the principles that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty...." The EC was an abomination from the second it was created because it codified a separate status for one category of citizens who not only had their own liberty taken from them, the EC gave their owner's states even more political representation/power based upon their own illicit subjugation and servitude. Again, I understand that slavery was legal and that murdering slaves violated no laws. Both of those are parts of the problem about the entire subject being immoral regardless of how the Founders viewed it.

Here's the rub: Articulate a purpose for a state-based, electoral, representational acknowledgement that doesn't involve entities who have no legal rights (to even life) within that same state. The answer would involve corporeal or non-corporeal property. That is precisely what the EC represents as it was created to be. You cannot dress up an immoral construct/compromise and argue that it's just because those who created it did so and called it legal.

#30 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 09:55 PM | Reply

"This is completely meaningless and I don't understand why you don't see that. It's sophistry as I stated above. The machinations the Founders made to somehow "compromise" that slaves were 3/5ths citizens should have been your first and only clue. No one is a partial human. It's lunacy."

Again, the 3/5ths compromise had nothing do with claiming that individual slaves were 3/5 of a citizen, 3/5 of a person or 3/5 of a human being. I think I've explained it to you in clear and simple terms, but you're choosing this hill of straw to die on. The EC had absolutely nothing to do with codifying slavery.

#31 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 10:09 PM | Reply

#29 What's ironic about that?

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-17 10:09 PM | Reply

At the end of the day, the electoral college is inherently unfair. I don't really care what its origins are; it needs to go.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-17 10:12 PM | Reply

At the end of the day, the electoral college is inherently unfair.

Only because the electors just rubber stamp the state popular vote and not do their jobs.

#34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-11-17 10:15 PM | Reply

#34 29 states require their electors to do that. They don't have a choice.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-17 10:19 PM | Reply

The EC had absolutely nothing to do with codifying slavery.

I never said that it did. I used the term "3/5ths" to delegitimize any construct built around the absurdity that any compromise which transfers the political rights (in whatever proportion) of a specified group of men to other men that happen to own them isn't illicit, immoral and quite illegal by every humane standard on Earth. People are whole, citizens are whole. Property can be divided, not people. Name any other time a citizen's political representation is proportionally different than any other citizen's.

The EC was created based on an immoral premise that owners of humans can take said ownership and create an additional political advantage based on another person's existence as their property.

You failed to answer my question because doing so makes plain why the EC was created. There would be no reason for an EC if not for a population of owned-persons being counted toward the political desires of their ownership class, totally disconnected from their own as autonomous human beings. If you feel differently then explain yourself.

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 10:36 PM | Reply

#36 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

In one breath you claim "The EC was an abomination from the second it was created because it codified a separate status for one category of citizens who not only had their own liberty taken from them", then you deny you made that claim with "I never said that it did" and then go on to make the same claim again.

Maybe you can't see how you're contradicting yourself, but you are.

Either both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives are abominations that are inextricable from historic slavery, or neither are.

#37 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 11:17 PM | Reply

Again, unless and until you address your own contradictions and illogic, I see no reason to keep repeating myself. The "separate status" no longer applies to the EC because of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, but I think you know this. I was referring to the EC's inception, not now.

Proportional representation is fine, but not when a different measure of proportion is used for different classes of people when there is only one race of personhood, the human race. It can't be any clearer. The reason why the EC was created that way as a matter of politics is moot because it's creation went against the spirit of what "representation" is supposed to denote, namely every individual is viewed equally.

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-17 11:29 PM | Reply

"Again, unless and until you address your own contradictions and illogic, I see no reason to keep repeating myself."

But you will keep repeating yourself, over and over, because you're not even trying to make a good faith argument anymore. You are demanding that I address a straw man argument. There are no contradictions or illogic in the arguments I've actually made.

Perhaps you are overtired. Have a good night.

#39 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-17 11:46 PM | Reply

Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

www.blackpast.org

The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. "It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of" the pro-slavery Southern states.

If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position"47 percent.

americanvision.org

#40 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2019-11-18 01:32 AM | Reply

There are no contradictions or illogic in the arguments I've actually made.

There is nothing but a sophist's ignorance of the immorality and injustice of your insistence that the 3/5ths compromise was in any humane sense legal or representative as we recognize such TODAY. What "representation" did the slaves receive out of it? It was a political sop that further enhanced the political power of the enslaver, full stop. The logic behind why the compromise was reached is moot in this discussion because it created a system where the same human beings were considered DIFFERENTLY towards an identical political ends - the distribution of political power ONLY WIELDED BY OPPRESSORS (in slave states) and in only in their full interests. This is the very definition of an unjust construct, not one worthy of a nation supposedly founded on the principle of equality under the law. (There is nothing wrong with proportional representation in non-slave states which you obviously are unable to distinguish and view as an invisible straw man. It's the fact those being counted don't have equal rights that make its usage wrong.)

We had a nation where 99.9% genetically identical human beings were treated differently because of the political decisions dictated by the "laws" and economic realities of the times. Go back to post #15 and read it carefully. You appear to be wholly ignorant of how many pro-slavery whites viewed black slaves as less than human in their times and actively used all means to enshrine that injustice into southern life and law as one of its most important principles. There was a very good reason the white people of Mississippi decided to create their own in-state EC in the late 19th Century and then proudly recorded it for posterity to note. They used it to make sure the political power of then-freed black people would never threaten the dominion of white people, a fully racist intent. During Reconstruction, they had already experienced true, open democracy and it took away the white's power, and that result could not be allowed to stand.

I'm not overtired, I'm over you.

#41 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 04:12 AM | Reply

"I'm over you."

No you're not. You're doing exactly what I said you would.

#42 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 06:30 AM | Reply

"Slavery itself was dehumanizing and immoral. Trying to claim the electoral college is somehow is associated with it is just as absurd and fallacious as claiming proportionate representation in the House of Representatives is."

Tony documented his claim very well, you are in denial because otherwise you would have to accept the unfair award of the Presidency to men who have not won even a plurality of the votes. Three times since Eisenhower they have done so and three times it has been disaster for America. When we think of the disaster of the Iraq invasion we should point and laugh at Sentinel. Only thing is, it was tragic not funny. These useless Republicans have caused much harm to America over and over. God save us from them in the future, I don't know how much more of their poison American can absorb.

#43 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-18 08:25 AM | Reply

"Either both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives are abominations that are inextricable from historic slavery, or neither are."

Not a logical conclusion at all. EC was, is and will be there until we end it because the less populated states want more power per voter than the voters who live in more highly populated states. It is undemocratic, unfair and has not led to better government. In some instances you could say it has led this country to disaster, example: Donald Trump.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-18 08:30 AM | Reply

"No you're not. You're doing exactly what I said you would."

I think it would be fair to say that virtually everyone posting here is over Sentinel. I honestly don't have the slightest respect for his posts. He should go live on one of those right wing wacko sites.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-18 08:32 AM | Reply

This must be "attack the EC week" in the Democrat playbook.

"California Dems Flood Colorado With Cash Ahead of National Popular Vote Referendum
Colorado pledged Electoral votes to popular vote winner earlier this year"

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-18 09:19 AM | Reply

It's almost as if it's an orchestrated campaign by the DNC and their media lapdogs.

"Stacey Abrams: The Electoral College Is Racist'"

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-18 09:27 AM | Reply

Folks .. our nation was founded upon the principle it was a "MORE perfect union"; but it was NOT and is NOT perfect. We are all humans and we sin and we are NOT perfect. Never will be.

Just remember that slavery has been abolished for well over 150 years now. 600,00+ mainly 'white' soldiers from the northern UNION states DIED -- they gave their lives -- to help abolish slavery. And they were successful.

So it is now well past time for the blacks and the white haters in this nation to end their madness, stop the inarticulate arguments that racism is prevalent (it is not), and admit that thanks to whites black America has been able to move upward to more equality than it has 150+ years ago.

One old adage says .. you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. The same holds true for black America. Whites have provided blacks an 'opportunity' to become successful, but whites cannot make the blacks actually work hard enough to actually be successful. It is still up to them and their actions.

#48 | Posted by SJHamilton at 2019-11-18 09:35 AM | Reply

Just remember that slavery has been abolished for well over 150 years now. 600,00+ mainly 'white' soldiers from the northern UNION states DIED -- they gave their lives -- to help abolish slavery. And they were successful.

Not exactly:

Over the course of the war, 2,128,948 men enlisted in the Union Army, including 178,895 colored troops; 25% of the white men who served were foreign-born. Of these soldiers, 596,670 were killed, wounded or went missing.

en.wikipedia.org

Also, not all those who fought did so to end slavery, per se. Many fought to preserve the union.

#49 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-18 09:45 AM | Reply

And many were just drafted.

#50 | Posted by bruceaz at 2019-11-18 09:52 AM | Reply

Just remember that slavery has been abolished for well over 150 years now. 600,00+ mainly 'white' soldiers from the northern UNION states DIED -- they gave their lives -- to help abolish slavery.

Maybe you are thinking of the commonly cited total number of dead on both sides:

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000.

civilwarhome.com

Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War.

www.battlefields.org

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-18 10:14 AM | Reply

Just remember that slavery has been abolished for well over 150 years now. 600,00+ mainly 'white' soldiers from the northern UNION states DIED -- they gave their lives -- to help abolish slavery.

Cry me a river.

The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside America. Approximately 1.2"2.4 million Africans died during their transport to the New World.[67] More died soon upon their arrival. The number of lives lost in the procurement of slaves remains a mystery but may equal or exceed the number who survived to be enslaved.[68] en.wikipedia.org
Whites have provided blacks an 'opportunity' to become successful, but whites cannot make the blacks actually work hard enough to actually be successful. It is still up to them and their actions.

You must be fully ignorant of what is posted in #15 which still remains the law in Mississippi today. Tell me again of all the "opportunity" America afforded slaves and their descendents that predicated the need for federal Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, 100 years after slavery was abolished.

Before you answer, pick up the red courtesy phone, you've got a call. Jim Crow on line 2 is waiting for you.

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 10:31 AM | Reply

This must be "attack the EC week" in the Democrat playbook.

Every week is "attack the EC week" as far as i'm concerned.

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 10:46 AM | Reply

Th3 3/5 thing was put in place to reduce the representation of the slave-holding states.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 11:12 AM | Reply

It's fun to watch Democrats spin the EC into a racist institute and then ignore the fact that the ones trying to keep slavery legal were Democrats.

The EC had a real purpose for existing and the times it has overturned the popular vote shows the exact reason why it is necessary. Slavery was just the social issue at the time that proved why it was necessary. It's just sad to see there are people in the country who actually think that the votes coming from 2 cities in America should dictate who is President. It's even worse that those same people are saying that one person's vote should count more than another, which is EXACTLY what this article is trying to say is wrong.

#55 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-18 11:53 AM | Reply

"It's fun to watch Democrats spin the EC into a racist institute and then ignore the fact that the ones trying to keep slavery legal were Democrats."

It's hilarious to see anyone post that considering that the Democrats, in the modern era, had comve full circle and supported civil rights. Posting that demonstrates either total dishonesty or lack of historical knowledge.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-18 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's just sad to see there are people in the country who actually think that the votes coming from 2 cities in America should dictate who is President

I don't care where Americans are from. I think the candidate who appeals to the most Americans should be the one who wins because someone's vote shouldn't be handicapped because they'd rather live in an apartment in Manhattan than on a ranch in Wyoming. We're all Americans.

Btw, LA and NYC have a combined population of 12.6 Million. Turnout in presidential elections is about 55%. Even if every single person who turned out in those cities voted for a Democrat, that would be about 6.9 million votes. That's around 10.5% of the votes Hillary got in 2016, meaning that almost 90% of Dem votes would still come from places that aren't NYC and LA under the ideal scenario of every single voter from those places voting for a Dem.

Why are Republicans who defend the EC such ------- liars?

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Th3 3/5 thing was put in place to reduce the representation of the slave-holding states." - #54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 11:12 AM

Actually, JeffJ, the opposite is true:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787

source

#58 | Posted by Hans at 2019-11-18 12:17 PM | Reply

"It's just sad to see there are people in the country who actually think that the votes coming from 2 cities in America should dictate who is President." - #55 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-18 11:53 AM

It's just sad to see there are people in the country who actually think that the votes coming from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin snd Michigan should dictate who is President.

#59 | Posted by Hans at 2019-11-18 12:20 PM | Reply

"...that's around 10.5% of the votes Hillary got in 2016, meaning that almost 90% of Dem votes would still come from places that aren't NYC and LA"

Oh, there you go again, trying to confuse Republicans with your Actual Math.

Try Republican Math, it's MUCH easier: 1 + 1 = Whatever my agenda requires

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 12:21 PM | Reply

4.4 million people in California voted for Trump. Another 2.8 million in NY, 2.1 million in IL, 1.7 million in VA and 1.6 million in NJ. None of their votes were represented by a single electoral vote.

In all, over 22 million people in blue states voted for Trump and none of their votes mattered. That's over 35% of his voters. The EC is indefensible.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 12:30 PM | Reply

#58

I think Jeff was trying to say that the slave states representation was lessened than it would have been had slaves been counted fully equal to non-slave citizens, though he stated it awkwardly. But as usual, your points are dead on.

Why are Republicans who defend the EC such ------- liars?

Because they refuse to understand that the 3/5ths compromise was SOLELY based on using the physical existence of (then) indentured non-citizen slaves to bolster the political power and influence of slaveholding states, nee slaveholders themselves.

States have manufactured boundaries, and if a future day arises where like-minded citizens support such, there is nothing to keep certain liberal-dominated states from dividing themselves into more smaller states - each with at least one congressional representative and two Senators. Californians flirted with such an amendment to create 7 states out of one, with 5 likely being consistently blue. How long do you think it would take Humtake to change his tune if all of a sudden there were say 60 US states and Democrats dominated the EC?

The very reason that this is even a constitutionally legal consideration underscores that the EC is not a democratic construct, it's exactly the opposite. It over-empowers some citizens - while diminishing others' - simple because of where imaginary lines are drawn on paper maps. The EC exists because of the unique proportional status (albeit immoral) its compromise creation afforded slaves to augment the power of slave states. Slavery is no longer legal. Neither should the EC be.

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 12:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not a logical conclusion at all."

You, Tony and others clearly don't understand how logic works at all. The apportionment of the Electoral College and the House of Representatives sprang from the exact same thing. You cannot condemn one as being evil and racist for being tangentially related to the circumstances of the time it was created without doing the same to the other. So the whole premise of this thread is false. Just admit it, instead of switching to a completely different, unrelated argument.

"EC was, is and will be there until we end it because the less populated states want more power per voter than the voters who live in more highly populated states. It is undemocratic, unfair..."

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That argument basically attacks the structure of the Senate, so if we combine the two together you're basically attacking the whole legislative branch, in effect. Sounds like something Donald Trump would do to troll people. But he doesn't need to because you're unwittingly doing it for him.

#63 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 12:57 PM | Reply

"So it is now well past time for the blacks and the white haters in this nation to end their madness,"

If you're equating "the blacks" with white haters, or even lumping them all into one group, then you are being racist here.

#64 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 01:02 PM | Reply

That argument basically attacks the structure of the Senate

"This argument reasonably attacks the validity of more than one institution, therefore the argument is invalid."

Wow what a mind blowing retort, how will Tony ever recover

#65 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 01:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It's just sad to see there are people in the country who actually think that the votes coming from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin snd Michigan should dictate who is President."

Every state has an equal opportunity to be a "swing" state. It's not the EC's fault if most of the people in your state choose to be partisan hacks. Maybe you should look at that as an underlying problem. It can't really be any harder than the uphill battle of trying to amend the Constitution, especially based on spurious arguments like the premise of this thread.

#66 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 01:15 PM | Reply

"This argument reasonably attacks the validity of more than one institution, therefore the argument is invalid."
Wow what a mind blowing retort, how will Tony ever recover

Another one who doesn't understand logic. If you are arguing to abolish both the House (for having alleged racist origins) and the Senate (for disproportionate representation per capita), then your argument is logically valid and consistent. Most people arguing to abolish the EC on either of those arguments are choosing not to admit that though. Why do you think that is?

#67 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 01:29 PM | Reply

"choosing not to admit that"

by "that" I mean that they are implicitly attacking both institutions with their argument.

#68 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 01:33 PM | Reply

69!

#69 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 01:34 PM | Reply

Joe, please stop. He doesn't get it. He's incapable of getting it. Let him rant.

Prolly makes him happy.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 01:34 PM | Reply

Every state has an equal opportunity to be a "swing" state.

Sure. Just cut funds for education. Pretend that your religion is the only religion and all of America should believe in your Gawd. Prevent the teachings of science and evolution if it conflicts with your dogma.

Undermine the elections process and pass laws to disenfranchise voters of color and pretend that foreign governments are not interfering.. as long as they are helping the GOP.

And you too could be a swing state!

#71 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-18 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#67 Nobody's arguing to abolish the House; that's your strawman "extension" of one person's argument.

My position is:
The Senate waters down some Americans' representation in a legislative body, to the benefit of a select few others. That is patently unfair.

The Electoral College waters down some Americans' voting power in Presidential elections, to the benefit of a select few others. That is patently unfair.

I don't like things that are patently unfair.

The end.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 01:45 PM | Reply

#72 The Senate was set up to prevent mob rule in the House.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 01:55 PM | Reply

"#67 Nobody's arguing to abolish the House; that's your strawman "extension" of one person's argument."

It's a logical extension of everyone who makes or agrees that the premise of this thread is a good argument for abolishing/cancelling the EC. Nobody is *admitting it*, at this point.

"My position is:
The Senate waters down some Americans' representation in a legislative body, to the benefit of a select few others. That is patently unfair."

I want to applaud you for being consistent on this, seriously, even though I disagree with you.

#74 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 01:57 PM | Reply

#73 "Mob rule" is a meaningless pejorative that only seeks to permit rule by a smaller mob.

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 02:11 PM | Reply

Tell it to the founding fathers who explicitly created a system designed to "temper the passions" of the mob.

#76 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-18 02:16 PM | Reply

#76 The founding fathers created an amendment process specifically because they had the ability to admit they might be wrong. Too bad you can never do the same.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 02:20 PM | Reply

Likewise, the level of deference i pay to what a bunch of slave owning racists thought 250 years ago gets smaller by the day. "Tell it to the founders" is a cop-out for when you can't defend something on the merits.

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 02:23 PM | Reply

I'll go with the timeless wisdom of James Madison over Angry Joe the Blogger and his fellow seditionist nihilists who would feed the Constitution into a paper shredder.

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-18 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Tell it to the founding fathers"

Are those the same founding fathers who wrote the emoluments clause? How about Article One, Section 2...same founders?

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 02:37 PM | Reply

There may be great arguments to abolish the EC, but it's racist origins aren't one of them.

Is it a serious agenda of the democratic party to abolish it?

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-18 02:42 PM | Reply

#79 Yeah, it's only bloggers who object to the patently unfair electoral college. Just another ad hominem fallacy to follow up on your argumentum ab auctoritate because you have no argument on the merits.

#82 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 02:44 PM | Reply

"then you are being racist here.
#64 | POSTED BYSENTINEL"

No, Sentinel.

You are being racist here.
It's who you are.
It's all you are.

A walking, talking accusation of "Racism!" at all the libs.

Remember that time you posted a thread with Swastikas in the title?

Remember what happened next?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 02:47 PM | Reply

Is it a serious agenda of the democratic party to abolish it?

Of course not. Look at the party's platform and those of its candidates. I don't think any serious party figures have that on the table.

But i would bet a strong majority of Dem voters support abolishing it, which is just another agenda item on which the party ignores not only its base but a large percentage of the party and Americans in general.

#84 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 02:47 PM | Reply

Is it a serious agenda of the democratic party to abolish it?

#81 | POSTED BY EBERLY

No. It's just a means to make excuses for losing in '16.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-18 02:59 PM | Reply

-But i would bet a strong majority of Dem voters support abolishing it,

Maybe you're right....but there's no poll of that? I would think there would be several polls on this issue.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-18 03:00 PM | Reply

but there's no poll of that? I would think there would be several polls on this issue.

There are polls. You can google them easily.

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 03:03 PM | Reply

The fact that libs would abolish the EC and cons keep finding reasons to make excuses for the EC kinda tells you everything you need to know.

Well, as Boaz puts it, "we are not a democracy."

That's the argument against abolishing the EC in a nutshell.

Every argument in favor of the EC has the rejection of direct democracy at its core.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 03:07 PM | Reply

"Every argument in favor of the EC has the rejection of direct democracy at its core."

As well it should.

We live in the United States of America. States-plural. 84% of which did not exist when the EC was created.

I don't think the voters want in flyover country want to give up what little say they have in choosing a president. And if they do, the state is fully empowered to do so.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-18 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy is a mentally ill poster. It's not surprising that he's defending the apparent actual racism in #48. He's making an oblique reference to a time when he and others on this site tried to lure 4chan trolls and white nationalists to this site just to shut down a thread they didn't like. He's like one of the 4chan trolls who DDoS'd their own site because they didn't like the Boxxy content.

#90 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 03:31 PM | Reply

I don't think the voters want in flyover country want to give up what little say they have in choosing a president

The amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to type this out in response to advocacy for a system where every vote matters the same amount is staggering.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-18 04:29 PM | Reply

The amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to type this out in response to advocacy for a system where every vote matters the same amount is staggering.

It's a prima facie example of scale-tipping privilege without a hint of self-awareness that any such unearned advantage even exists.

#92 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 04:55 PM | Reply

"I don't think the voters want in flyover country want to give up what little say they have in choosing a president."

How dishonest to you have to be to call "disproportionately more say" "little say?"

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 04:58 PM | Reply

"Snoofy is a mentally ill poster."

Sentinel is a white nationalist Swastika rehabilitator.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 04:59 PM | Reply

"the 3/5ths compromise was SOLELY based on using the physical existence of (then) indentured non-citizen slaves to bolster the political power and influence of slaveholding states"

^
Anyone who denies this is a liar and a revisionist historian.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 05:06 PM | Reply

Are there still slaves today?

Do blacks have equal rights today?

How long ago since the last person was a slave in the U.S.?

Jesus, it's time to move on Liberals, you are hurting the country keeping slavery alive.

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 06:43 PM | Reply

And we are the United STATES.

You want to end the EC? Change the name as well.

If you abolish the EC, we would only be three voting states. I dont live in California or New York. I dont vote like them. My vote has to have a voice and not only a voice to be dismissed and ignored by the mobs in liberal coastal cities.

#97 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 06:47 PM | Reply

#97 | POSTED BY BOAZ

There's a reason UNITED comes first.

#98 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 06:48 PM | Reply

you are hurting the country keeping slavery alive.
#96 | POSTED BY BOAZ

They're keeping the memory of slavery alive as the philosophies that supported it still have a significant and lasting effect on culture and economic/educational opportunities, mainly through institutional racism. The New Jim Crow stemmed from the Old Jim Crow which stemmed from slavery.

You choose ignorance regarding this. Why do you continue to choose ignorance?

#99 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#96 | POSTED BY BOAZ

As I have pointed out previously when you cry about people wanting the popular vote to choose the POTUS: He/She is one person, and they do not write the laws. There are normally checks and balances but Trump is trying to destroy all of those and you are rooting for him the entire way. The voice of the minority is in the Senate and that is where it belongs. Each state should be represented by their Senators equally regardless of population, but our President should be decided one person - one vote. You dont matter anymore than I do.

#100 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-18 06:53 PM | Reply

There's a reason UNITED comes first.
#98 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

If it were up to Boaz, he'd destroy this nation.

That's why he's so desperate for another civil war.

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 06:55 PM | Reply

"If you abolish the EC, we would only be three voting states"

Absolute nonsense. In a close election, ANY state could be the tipping point. Next time, try ACTUAL math.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-18 06:56 PM | Reply

I will also throw in the fact that most people I personally know who refuse to vote, simply refuse because they believe their voice doesn't matter. If you take that excuse away I would bet money we have a higher turn out, and it could surprise us all what we see then.

#103 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-18 07:00 PM | Reply

The only reason this topic is out there is because Trump won by it. Had Hillary won be the electoral college the left would be championing it at this time.

#104 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-18 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The only reason this topic is

Because without the EC the Republicans would never, ever, win a national election. Ever.

So. You cheat.

Pat yourself on the back.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 07:07 PM | Reply

Democrats and Republicans alike have had the opportunity to do away with this for years and they haven't. It's one of those things that no one wants to touch. I learned about it in my high school government class when I was a senior, I thought it was stupid as the formal explanation given to us was something to do with the Pony Express carrying the ballots. I still think it's stupid today because each individual vote should be heard. no matter what part of the country you live in. its no more a republican's fault they live in New York than it's a democrat's fault they live in LA (Lower Alabama) a vote is a vote is a vote.

#106 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-18 07:19 PM | Reply

#102

By golly, you are right, and Actual Math tells us that if there was no EC, California would have elected Hillary as President for the rest of the country, since she won by 3 Million votes nationally but by 4 Million in California.

Actual Math tells us that the rest of the US gave Donald Trump 1 Million more votes than Hillary, but California would have elected her.

I am cool with California deciding how the rest of the nation lives...but I don't think anyone else outside of CA would agree with me.

#107 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-18 07:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And we are the United STATES.
You want to end the EC? Change the name as well."

Agreed.

"If you abolish the EC, we would only be three voting states."

I think you need to check your math here. By my reckoning, a candidate would need to win 100% in at least the 9 most populous states (which include red, blue and swing states), or a greater number of combinations of other states, in order to get over 50% off the popular vote.

#108 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 07:44 PM | Reply

"I will also throw in the fact that most people I personally know who refuse to vote, simply refuse because they believe their voice doesn't matter."

I would say that they are part of the problem. I do not believe most of those people would change their habits if they lived in a swing state or nationwide direct democracy. They'd just find another excuse not to vote.

#109 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 07:49 PM | Reply

You people are still stupid. Our system of voting is because each of the states is sovereign. We are like our own little mini countries. As it should be. If you dont like the culture of one state, you an move to one that does. I wouldnt give that up for anything. I wouldnt want to live in California or Washington State. And if I did, I would move. I dont want to live around a bunch of liberals. They dont have my voice. They dont have my lifestyle or worldview. It would suck.

Our states decide who is the President. That's how it should be. Leave your masses for your local elections. As it's meant to be. Keep your crazy in the coastal cities.

#110 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 07:52 PM | Reply

You people are still stupid.
#110 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Projection.

#111 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 07:53 PM | Reply

If you abolish the EC, we would only be three voting states

You have so little respect for Americans, it's disgusting.

#112 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 07:57 PM | Reply

#109 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

What's it gonna take to get California over 60%?

California = 58.2%
New York = 57.2%
Hawaii = 43.2%
Texas = 51.4%
Tennessee = 51.8%

Florida = 65.6%
Wisconsin = 69.5%
Iowa = 69.1%
Ohio = 64.2%
Minnesota = 74.7%

*2016 Election

#113 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 07:58 PM | Reply

#110 | POSTED BY BOAZ

"So says BOAZ; so it shall be."

------- sad.

#114 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-18 07:59 PM | Reply

Boaz hates the United States of America.

He pictures our nation like a European Union.

Boaz. You're quite the ignorant fool.

#115 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:00 PM | Reply

Boaz's hyperbole aside, how do most of you think most developed countries today choose their heads of state? Is it by direct democracy?

How about the countries that are roughly the same geographical size as the U.S.?

#116 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 08:03 PM | Reply

...without the EC the Republicans would never, ever, win a national election. Ever.

They use it to cheat.

Without the EC all the voter suppression in red states becomes useless.

#117 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:06 PM | Reply

#116,

I really dont care. We are special. That's why we are the best and where EVERYONE wants to come HERE.

Boaz hates the United States of America.

Actually it's you who hates America. That's why you are trying to change it so bad. But the American people are on to you liberals. You are just too dumb to see it.

#118 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 08:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Boaz hates the United States of America.

Actually it's you who hates America.
#118 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Brilliant retort, stupid.

How are your civil war plans coming along?

#119 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:12 PM | Reply

That's why you are trying to change it so bad. But the American people are on to you liberals. You are just too dumb to see it.

Posted by boaz

Thank God for you liberals made it possible for you to rise in the ranks and pee in the same bathroom, among the many other benefits you can thank them for, you ungrateful m*****fker.

#120 | Posted by americanunity at 2019-11-18 08:12 PM | Reply

How are your civil war plans coming along?

Maybe you should ask yourself. How's your plans to keep America divided along racial and cultural lines?

That's going to start another civil war before I will.

I guess rather than letting others who dont believe in your ideology live their lives apart from you, you would rather just burn it all down.

You may get your wish.

#121 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How are your civil war plans coming along?

Maybe you should ask yourself

I don't have any civil war plans. Unlike you who brings it up constantly.

As for the rest of you post. It's all projection. You hate America.

What a POS you are.

#122 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:19 PM | Reply

without the EC the Republicans would never, ever, win a national election. Ever.

#123 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:22 PM | Reply

I must say Clownshack, you are one of the --------- trolls on here...

Maybe you should learn how to troll, you really suck at it.

#124 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-18 08:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I must say Boaz.

I'm not trolling. Just giving you my honest opinion. .

Also. You can't disprove this, "without the EC the Republicans would never, ever, win a national election. Ever. So you need it, to cheat."

#125 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:27 PM | Reply

Boaz,

Does the truth stab you in the heart like daggers?

Your stupid notion that we're separate states. If so. Let's see a state separate from the Union. Oh that's right. You confederates tried that and lost.

Loser.

#126 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:30 PM | Reply

".....without the EC the Republicans would never, ever, win a national election. Ever."

Are you trying to compete with Boaz for the most over the top hyperbole? What do you think you're gonna win?

#127 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 08:43 PM | Reply

Boaz is the greatest troll in DR history.

#128 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-18 08:44 PM | Reply

Boaz is the greatest troll in DR history.
#128 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

Goatman takes that as a personal insult.

#129 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 08:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I enjoy the fact Nulli flagged Boaz's posts newsworthy.

Extra feather in my cap.

Hey Nulli. If you manage to put a cognizant thought together. Feel free to share it with us.

Meanwhile. Flag away!

#130 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-18 09:26 PM | Reply

Wanna know what's ironic? Those who champion the modern day use of the Electoral College are the same crew who tried to eliminate it's chief purpose as the proportional representation aspect of the Constitution empowers those they feel would use said political power against their interests. Let me explain.

The US Census count is also based not on counting "citizens", it's based on counting all the people living within the United States borders including those with statuses that don't allow them to vote. I'm pretty sure that a strong majority of this group reside in greater numbers around urban areas throughout America than in rural states.

Which brings me back to the point. The very reason the Trump Administration and conservative activists across this nation have tried to create environments where these people are undercounted or eliminated from enumeration completely is the complete antithesis of their cries for leaving the disproportionate effect of the Electoral College in place. On one hand, they're happy to wield additional political power due to arbitrary geographic boundaries that no one living actually decided upon, but they're equally up in arms when the same system empowers their political opposition due to geographic factors that work against them.

So keep this in mind when the argument turns to counting only citizens in our Census. It's called having your cake and eating it too, and the practical result of this bifurcated view is to retain outsized political influence due to arbitrary geographic factors for yourself while making every effort to deny the same to others.

#131 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 09:32 PM | Reply

--Meanwhile. Flag away!

I will. Saves my aching hands for more important writing. Cheers!

#132 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-18 09:51 PM | Reply

Maybe you should ask yourself. How's your plans to keep America divided along racial and cultural lines?

#121 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-18 08:14 PM | REPLY

I'm going to say this not to insult you but shed some light on that ridiculous post. You attend a Masonic lodge that was formed because the F&AM lodge refuse, still today, to let African American's attend. I stood up in 1994 and rebuked the Grand Lodge of Louisiana in a letter and demanded that they take my name off the role because I was tired of hanging my head in shame because my lodge brothers claimed to be better than African Americans. I didn't do it to get a medal of honor or wear it on my sleeve. I did it because I didn't want America to be divided along racial lines but along the lines of character of the individuals themselves. I put that ---- in writing and every friend and family member I had in the Lodge knew about it and it changed my relationships with some. You can label me a liberal if you like but at least I had the balls to put my money where my mouth is.

#133 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-18 09:54 PM | Reply

"As I have pointed out previously when you cry about people wanting the popular vote to choose the POTUS: He/She is one person, and they do not write the laws. There are normally checks and balances but Trump is trying to destroy all of those and you are rooting for him the entire way. The voice of the minority is in the Senate and that is where it belongs. Each state should be represented by their Senators equally regardless of population, but our President should be decided one person - one vote. You dont matter anymore than I do."
#100 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-11-18 06:53 PM

The Founders were obviously deeply divided on how the POTUS should be elected. Some wanted a model like the Senate, others wanted one like the House that was proportionate to the population in each state. They considered direct elections twice, and rejected it both times by huge margins. The EC was a compromise between the first two methods, with intermediary electors casting the ballots instead of the state or national legislatures. The intent of the Founders was that each seat of government be selected by a different method. (There were no direct elections of Senators until much later.)

Can you elaborate on your reasoning why only the legislative branch should be tempered between the interests of people in each state and the interests of most of the people in the country?

The reason why I asked earlier about other countries that use direct popular vote to elect their leaders is because I'm looking for some evidence of where it works and is effective, or isn't as the case may be.

#134 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 09:55 PM | Reply

"So keep this in mind when the argument turns to counting only citizens in our Census."

First off, it's nice to see that you've given up on the original premise of this thread. Even you know how pathetic it was (although I'm sure you won't admit it.)

I see you're still addicted to straw man arguments, though. There was no proposal to count only Citizens in the census. The proposal was to get more demographic data, just like we already do with gender, race, etc.

#135 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-18 10:09 PM | Reply

There was no proposal to count only Citizens in the census.

Go back and reread what I wrote. Yet again, your reading comprehension and logic skills fail you. I spoke of compound issues that you obviously know nothing about, not singularly Trump's efforts tied to 2020. Is English your second language or were your teachers derelict in their skill sets?

Please leave me alone.

#136 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-18 10:20 PM | Reply

"Yet again, your reading comprehension and logic skills fail you."

They're working as intended.
The white nationalist is passing himself off as someone capable of rational debate.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-18 11:28 PM | Reply

"The amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to type this out in response to advocacy for a system where every vote matters the same amount is staggering."

It has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. Using your logic, the US should also terminate the system by which each state has two Senators, regardless of size.

Do that, and you no longer have a United States of America. It's just one big state. Any geographic state lines would be meaningless.

...which again, is why, most of the states in this country are not going to willingly give up the little bit of say they have. And fortunately, they're able to do exactly that under the constitution.

#138 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-19 12:55 AM | Reply

"...which again, is why, most of the states in this country are not going to willingly give up the little bit of say they have."

Bingo.

And that's why the EC won't be repealed: a handful of states would have to cede parliamentary power. As Jimmy Carter once put it, many years ago during a Nightline interview with Ted Koppel...That's. just. not. going. to. happen.

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-19 01:07 AM | Reply

Using your logic, the US should also terminate the system by which each state has two Senators, regardless of size. Do that, and you no longer have a United States of America. It's just one big state. Any geographic state lines would be meaningless.

I already pointed out in post #62 just the opposite. There is nothing in the Constitution that's stopping the reformation of states into a grouping more inline with the population of citizens they represent, and that has nothing to do with touching the two senator per state requirement. Nothing is stopping us from expanding the number of states by redrawing boundaries as a matter of constitutional law.

But that isn't the article's thrust. It empirically shows how the 3/5th compromise led to an Electoral College designed on the basis of giving unequal political power to then-slave states based on the fact their "property" (slaves) was given federal proportional consideration for their owner's benefit while at the same time being dispossessed of simple human and legal rights under the same laws.

#140 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-19 04:40 AM | Reply

OK, the people that insisted upon the 3/5th rule were not the slave holders. It was the FREE states and this was a compromise. The free states did not want slaves counted at all for population/representative purposes. This compromise was required to get the Constitution passed, sort of important.
Dream on getting rid of the electoral college, that would require changing/amending the document. Take the population of five states you get about half the population, but 5% of the Senate. The Senate requires a 2/3 majority to pass an amendment. Small states are not going to give up this power, ever.

#141 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-11-19 06:27 AM | Reply

#133,

So in light of your post, you that today, any mason can go to any lodge, unlike how it used to be. You can now walk up to any lodge, as long as it isn't clandestine, knock on the door, give the pass or negotiate with the Tyler and sit in on a meeting if the District Deputy agree to it. Those racist days are over. I just sat in on a few meetings of the Grand Lodge of NC, AFAM. We just walked up, showed credentials and were welcomed in by the East.

Those days of racism liberals keep bringing up are largely gone and things have changed. It's time liberals embraced that change, but to do that would take a large weapon in their arsenal away, racism.

#142 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-19 08:41 AM | Reply

I do embrace the change but it ain't all changed as you'd like it to be. I did what I did because I wanted to see that change. So far, there has been some strides but largely in the south it's only a muzzle on a dog that bites if the two lodges are commingled. Publicity has applied a certain amount of pressure on the Blue Lodge as well as a lot of the older generation died off. Glad to see you visiting other lodges where you once weren't welcome. Just dont accuse people of keeping racial tensions alive when it's not accurate.

#143 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-19 09:10 AM | Reply

Just dont accuse people of keeping racial tensions alive when it's not accurate.

I dont agree. That's all I see liberals/Democrats doing.

Glad to see you visiting other lodges where you once weren't welcome.

You could say that about alot of things. I havent been not allowed into somewhere because of my race in my lifetime and I'm 50 years old. Racism isnt like the liberals say it is..

#144 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-19 11:05 AM | Reply

"That's all I see liberals/Democrats doing."

No you don't. You see what Fox News and your puppetmasters want you to see.

Racism isnt like the liberals say it is..
#144 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Liberals do not define racism in America. They did not start it. But they did in the past participate and they did help end it.

So if you are indeed a person of color you can thank a liberal anytime for the freedoms you get to enjoy today. Many of them died for you.

But I won't hold my breathe as I know you won't.

#145 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-19 11:17 AM | Reply

Piss, moan and complain.... If you do not like the Electoral College then contact your libbie House members and Senators and push for an amendment to the US Constitution as there are procedures for that. Good Luck at accomplishing that as you'll need it [Remember the Equal Rights Amendment?]

#146 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-19 12:03 PM | Reply

"Liberals do not define racism in America. They did not start it. But they did in the past participate and they did help end it.

So if you are indeed a person of color you can thank a liberal anytime for the freedoms you get to enjoy today. Many of them died for you.

But I won't hold my breathe as I know you won't. "

Seriously? So the civil war when Dems fought for slavery ended racism? Liberals all have this problem...they go back in history just far enough where it doesn't make them look bad. Not to mention, saying racism is ended means you ignore the last couple of decades of Liberals trying to make America feel as if racism is the worst epidemic of this century. Both sides have their faults but it is the Liberals who make race an issue because they separate -isms from what they really are, which is hate. If you fought only hate, everyone would be treated the same. But you don't. You put people into groups and then whine and cry whenever any of those groups are treated with hate, so it looks like they are subject to some kind of -ism. Reps want the freedom to hate on everyone equally and instead of fighting against that, Dems fight for the groups that they made and ignore any other kind of hate. It's very much the Sound of Silence type of situation in a different context.

If you want to talk about the Liberals of the past helping, they used slogans like "Make love, not war". They fought to get rid of hate. Today, a Liberal lesbian tells the country to love everyone regardless of opinion and millions of Liberals hate on HER!!!! Yes, Liberals did help in many ways but don't even try to compare Liberals of today to those of the past. I'm not a Dem anymore in big part because of this.

#147 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-19 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-I dont agree. That's all I see liberals/Democrats doing.

It's not all they do but it's certainly part of the overall strategy.

The democratic party has challenges with voter turnout. There are lot of folks who are not conservative, but rather moderate and liberal but they aren't consistent voters to a point where the democratic party can rely on their turnout...especially in mid-term elections. This has proven to be an advantage for the GOP....and they know it.

So, it's unfortunately but a certain level of race baiting is necessary to gin up motivation so folks will show up on election day. There's no getting around it.

This has been a strategy long before Trump and will continue long after Trump.

#148 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-19 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I will. Saves my aching hands for more important writing." - #132 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-18 09:51 PM

"Writing" is nulli's shorthand for self-satisfaction (------------).

#149 | Posted by Hans at 2019-11-19 01:00 PM | Reply

"OK, the people that insisted upon the 3/5th rule were not the slave holders."
^
The slave holders wanted slaves to count equal.

"It was the FREE states"
^
No it wasn't.

"and this was a compromise."
^
Yes, 3/5 is a compromise between 0 and 1.

"The free states did not want slaves counted at all."

Correct.

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-19 01:01 PM | Reply

"So, it's unfortunately but a certain level of race baiting is necessary to gin up motivation so folks will show up on election day. There's no getting around it."

It's interesting how Eberly points out simply not being racist is not in the GOP DNA.

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-19 01:03 PM | Reply

"The democratic party has challenges with voter turnout." - #148 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-19 12:55 PM

A definite sigh of relief for Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, along with Senator Roy Moore, and Govenors Matt Bevin and Eddie Rispone, not to mention the Republican Party of Orange County, California.

#152 | Posted by Hans at 2019-11-19 01:06 PM | Reply

"I already pointed out in post #62 just the opposite. There is nothing in the Constitution that's stopping the reformation of states into a grouping more inline with the population of citizens they represent, and that has nothing to do with touching the two senator per state requirement."

But it would require the state government's approval. And states could just as easily award their electoral votes based on percentages, as opposed to winner-take-all. The bottom line is that it is up to the states, and there is not much the Federal government could legally do about it.

#153 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-19 01:07 PM | Reply

So if you are indeed a person of color you can thank a liberal anytime for the freedoms you get to enjoy today.

I'll thank Medgar Evers and MLK before I'll ever thank a white liberal.

#154 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-19 03:41 PM | Reply

I'll thank Medgar Evers and MLK

Great men both.

Both would be considered progressives and liberals in today's political climate.

#155 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 03:49 PM | Reply

Both would be considered progressives and liberals in today's political climate.

#155 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

MLK would find the extreme identity politics of today's left. It's a complete opposite to what he preached.

#156 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-19 03:52 PM | Reply

#156 Let me restate that first sentence:

MLK would find the extreme identity politics of today's left to be abhorrent.

#157 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-19 03:53 PM | Reply

Hey, Civil War Boazo,

Able to disprove my statement, "without the EC Republicans would never, ever win a national election again. So they need it to cheat."

Of course you can't. Because based on the popular vote (each American represented) Republicans are losers.

#158 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 03:54 PM | Reply

MLK would find the extreme identity politics of today's left to be abhorrent.
#157 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Good attempt at trolling Jeff.

Perhaps spend some money and hire a write to help you.

#159 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 03:56 PM | Reply

I was dead serious, Clown.

"Don't judge by the color of the skin but the content of character."

Trot that out to the woke crowd without attribution and see what kind of response you get. It won't be pretty.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-19 03:58 PM | Reply

#160

Oh I'm sure you were "serious" Jeff.

Your usually full of shht. So why would this attempt to fling it be any different than your other attempts.

MLK jr would be appalled by today's right wing. Just as he was in the 60s. You MFers killed him because he was championing civil rights for black Americans.

The Republican Party is a group of detestable, angry, ignorant Americans.

#161 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 04:07 PM | Reply

"Don't judge by the color of the skin but the content of character."

If only you were able to do that for the trans community.

#162 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 04:27 PM | Reply

I do.

#163 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-19 04:29 PM | Reply

I wonder if Laura would agree with you.

#164 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 04:34 PM | Reply

"MLK would find the extreme identity politics of today's left to be abhorrent."

How about the white nationalist anti-immigrant identity politics of the right?
More to the point, why doesn't JeffJ find that abhorrent?

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-19 04:50 PM | Reply

"Don't judge by the color of the skin but the content of character."

Trump's Muslim travel ban is judging Muslims by the content of their character, according to today's Republicans.
Just ask them.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-19 04:52 PM | Reply

"Don't judge by the color of the skin but the content of character."

Trump's Muslim travel ban is judging Muslims by the content of their character, according to today's Republicans.
Just ask them.

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-19 04:52 PM | Reply

"Don't judge by the color of the skin but the content of character."

If only you were able to do that for the trans community.

#162 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 04:27 PM | Reply

I do.

#163 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-19 04:29 PM | Reply

I wonder if Laura would agree with you.

#164 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-19 04:34 PM | Reply

What a bunch of horse schit. No you don't Jeff. Not by a long shot.

#168 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-19 05:23 PM | Reply

#164

I couldn't give a ---- if Laura agrees. She's one of the biggest bigots and misogynists on this site.

#169 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-19 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You could say that about alot of things. I havent been not allowed into somewhere because of my race in my lifetime and I'm 50 years old. Racism isnt like the liberals say it is..
#144 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-11-19 11:05 AM | FLAG:
You're full of ----. you know very well that there are still lodges in the south that you aren't welcome in. Its dishonest what you're doing here.

#170 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-11-19 07:38 PM | Reply

Able to disprove my statement, "without the EC Republicans would never, ever win a national election again. So they need it to cheat."

Of course you can't. Because based on the popular vote (each American represented) Republicans are losers.

#158 | Posted by ClownShack

There will always be more hands out for free stuff and if you give them the vote, you may as well give them the treasury. Our founders knew this. That's why we have the EC.

It's quite apparent our founders intended on the states being sort of mini countries, sovereign and independent in a federation of other states for international affairs. If you dont see this, you are just stupid and a partisan liberal.

#171 | Posted by boaz at 2019-11-20 10:12 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort