When I first saw your post #3 where you repeatedly referred to the Electoral College as "the problem" I was thinking of pointing out that nowhere did you acknowledge, much less examine the fact that the Electoral College was a solution when originally proposed. You've now (finally!) provided some analysis of its origin...albeit 80% of your post was totally irrelevant and almost all of the relevant bits (quoted above) were wrong... Here's what you got wrong: 1. It was, in general, the Southern (slave) states that favored proportional representation and the Northern States (non-slave) that favored state-by-state representation, not the other way around. 2. Recent biased media reports I've seen making the rounds to the contrary (including on CNN), the Electoral College is not the daughter of the 3/5th's compromise. The 3/5ths compromise was a separate daughter (or, perhaps, cousin?) of the Great Compromise that brought us the current representation structure. It was a ready-made solution used previously in the Articles of Confederation, so it was incorporated into the Great Compromise, which established the structure of the legislature. The Electoral College was then based on the structure of Congress. Because of this, the 3/5ths compromise could be and was eliminated without necessitating any logical changes to the structure of Congress or the Electoral College: Their reason for existing didn't change and their structure didn't change when the 3/5ths compromise went away (only the current representative counts changed). The connection to slavery is just liberals crying racism again. It's a club they think they can use to beat others into submission and win arguments without actually addressing the topic at hand. A trolling tactic (not that you are the only or originator of it). You haven't, though, addressed an additional elephant in the room that the history suggests: are you also proposing that the Senate be disbanded or changed to proportional representation, since it is the parent of the logic that brought us the Electoral College? Or, now that you know the correct history, does that change your opinion on eliminating the Electoral College? It certainly can be argued that the Electoral College is obsolete, and I suppose you don't actually need a reason to make a change to the Constitution or other aspect of government -- but you do have to have a reason if you want to convince people to support the change.
Not proportional voter representation. All the issues of a compromise are products of each other - that's what compromise means. Slavery was the central and dominant issue of the Great Compromise, and everything that came out of it was adjusted to accommodate the continuation of slavery. For a while. As Lincoln put it, the country could not have continued half slave and half free. Whether it can continue half Fox and half free we don't yet know - the signs, including the recent electoral college abetted election riggings, say otherwise.
Nope. You should read-up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise Then consider the fact that it was the slave states who were bigger and growing at the time and that the 3/5ths compromise helped them via proportional representation. You're improperly applying today's demographics to the demographics of the 1790s. Back then, Virginia (slave state and source of the Virginia Plan for proportional representation) was a big state, not a small state.
And, pray tell, how is that relevant? It was a solution 230 years ago. Now it's a problem for the previously elucidated reasons. Just because you don't like things. just because reality isn't consistent with your biases, that doesn't make them irrelevant or wrong. And apparently, you didn't get the part where I very clearly stated why the Electoral College was created. I suggest you go back and read my previous post. It appears you missed a great deal. Knowing you, it's not surprising. Here is what you got wrong: 1) The founding fathers argued that the president should be elected by Congress. But it was felt that gave Congress too much power. So they created an institution based on the representation in Congress which would elect the president. And of course we all know or should know about the 3/5ths compromise resolving how slaves would be counted. Counting slaves for representation in Congress, even though slaves were not recognized as persons and had no legal rights, advantaged slave holding states. It really isn't that complicated or difficult. But for you it is. Each slave was counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation in Congress even though slaves weren't considered persons and had no voting rights. This gave slave states more voting power than they would have had. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue 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 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 persons had been counted equally, allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise 2) Just because you don't like facts and reason or reality, it doesn't make them biased. The unfortunate fact you want to runaway from is The Great Compromise favors small states over large states. That's how we get situations where the loser becomes the winner, e.g. Baby Bush and The Donald. Just because it has been the law of the land for hundreds of years doesn't make it right. Slavery was the law of the land for many years; that doesn't make slavery right either. But that's basically your argument. LOL...The slavery connection is real. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't erase it from history. I don't see anyone crying here. But I do see a lot of folks like you lamenting and trying to deny reality. Hmm...you don't need a reason to change the Constitution? Where does that come from? People normally do things for a reason and there are good reasons to change the Constitution, that's why the founding fathers laid out a process for doing so. It's difficult. But there is a process. And there are good reasons to eliminate the Electoral College. Traditionally, the Electoral College hasn't played a material role in our electoral process. Normally, the winner of the popular vote also wins the Electoral College vote. But in recent history that is increasingly not the case e.g. Baby Bush 2000 and The Donald 2016. In the 240 years of our country's history that disparity has only occurred 5 times and 2 of those times within the last 16 years. The Electoral College has become more relevant in our election process by repeatedly overturning the popular vote. That is a problem in a democracy whether you and those like you chose to recognize it or not. Now is it politically viable, no, because Republicans control Congress and most of the state houses. As long as that remains the case, the Electoral College will remain. The only reason Republicans control the presidency and Congress is because of the very undemocratic aspects of our government, e.g. the Electoral College and gerrymandering. Without the very undemocratic institutions ingrained in your government, Republicans would control neither Congress or the presidency and Republicans know that. That's why a snow ball has a better chance in Hell, than any measure to eliminate the Electoral College or gerrymandering. But there will come a time when Republicans don't control Congress and the White House and many state houses.
That's a fine enough opinion to have. My point was that you skipped saying that in your original analysis. Again, in order to decide the original reason for existing is no longer relevant (and therefore it is worthy of change), you first have to analyze that original reason for existing! Clearly, I did: it's the first sentence I quoted in my post #41. The thesis of my post. It's primary reason I responded. Here it is again: It's flat-out wrong. And it is wrong because of the next sentence, which was also wrong: The slave states were the large states. The slave states feared the small states would force them to give up their slaves. You have who supported what backwards. In any case: That is correct. As you now correctly indicate, they are separate decisions/compromises. A compromise is splitting between two separate positions. One position favored large states over small states and the other position favored small states over large states. The compromise made one house of Congress favor large states and the other favor small states. But in either case, your characterization isn't the main problem (it's just a manifestation of your bias): the problem is that you don't know which states were the large ones and which were the small ones! You don't know who favored which side of the argument! That's why you presented it in a biased way that - oops - argues against your point! (LOL) That language is the language of sour grapes. The winner is the one who wins and the loser is the one who loses, not the other way around. Your objection to the rules does not constitute a reality that someone else won. It's like arguing against the 3-pointer in basketball by saying the Warriors scored fewer baskets than most of their opponents last year and therefore "lost" most of their games. That's not how the rules work: they won because the points aren't counted the way you want them to be. And based on your biased characterizations, I'm quite certain if the tables were turned, you'd be supporting the Electoral College. That was not my argument. I simply stated that in order to know if a situation has changed to make previous logic no longer relevant, you have to actually examine the previous logic. Reading comprehension, Joe. Yes, they do. And my point is that if you want people to agree that they should change the Constitution, you have to give them a reason that satisfies them. There's logic to be had in the position you support, but you'd rather resort to ad hominem and insults in hopes that those arguments are more powerful. News flash: Trump won the election because they aren't (and, in part, Romney lost in 2008 for the same reason). I don't know, Joe, maybe the fact that the Electoral college has become more relevant means the problem it was put in place to solve has become more relevant due to recent demographic shifts? Circling back around, this highlights why you are crying slavery instead of focusing on the truth of why the Electoral College exists. It's a diversion and (you think) a useful club. We don't have slavery and we don't have the 3/5 Compromise anymore, but we do still have big states and small states. The big state vs small state issue is why the Electoral College exists and why Congress has the structure it has. You can argue that's not a good enough reason to keep it but it is most absolutely still a relevant reason.
Just because you don't like the truth, it doesn't make it any less truthful. Additionally, facts aren't ad hominem. They are just facts. And it's more than a little hypocritical for you to accuse others, especially moi, of adhominem. For your edification: "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. Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves. The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election. In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century." http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/ "Not all academics agree that slavery was the driving force behind the Electoral College, though most agree there’s a connection." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/ The fact is the Electoral College is a vestige slavery whither you like it or not: whither it complements your so called "conservative" ideology or not. As I have said many times before in this thread, you either believe in democracy or you don't and clearly people like you don't: Republicans don't. We are a democracy or we aren't. It really is that simple, and when the will of the majority is repeatedly subverted by the will of the few, you don't have a democracy. How does it feel arguing against democracy? One can understand why 37% of Republicans like Putin given how they feel about democracy.
Not in population. http://www.ushistory.org/us/33b.asp The average population of a slave state was about 820,000. The average population of free or border state was about 910,000. And that counted the slaves as "population". Counting only white people, the average slave state population was about 500,000.
This looks like an attempt at flooding to try to dodge your error, as it doesn't directly address anything I said. Either that or you're just unable to grasp it. I'll make it as simple as possible, step by step. Please acknowledge the following: 1. Virginia was a slave state at the time of the Revolution. 2. Virginia proposed "The Virginia Plan", which called for proportional representation in both houses of Congress. 3. New Jersey was a free state at the time of the Revolution. 4. New Jersey proposed "The New Jersey Plan", aka "The Small State Plan", calling for state-by-state representation.
LOL..... I suggest you be honest with yourself and others. If need be I suggest you read my previous post and pay particular attention to my references. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you need a remedial course in reading comprehension? Once again for your edification: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/electoral-college.158518/page-3#post-3427733 The unfortunate fact for you is the Electoral College is a vestige of our slavery owning history. As politically inconvenient as that is for you, that is the truth of the matter. And as previously pointed out this is really very simple. You either believe in democracy or you don't. And it's quite clear you and your fellow Republicans don't believe in democracy. Because if we had a true democracy, Republicans wouldn't hold Congress or the presidency.
No they believe in a republic, hence republicans, while a republic is a form of democracy in which representatives are elected, a republic does not need to and often encourages that representation be non-equal. While a democrat wants everyone to have equal voting power aka "one vote per person" republicans believe some states should have more voting power than others because of aaah "farmers verse city folk" so a person in North Dakota has nearly three times the representation in the electoral college and house+senate as a person in California, never mind that both those people could be farmers or in a city (hard calling Fargo a city though). Consequentially republicans like a representation distribution that amplifies their voting power.
Non-responsive; That means you realize your error. Concession accepted, thanks for playing. If you want to save some face, you can blame it on the media and I'll act like I believe it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Non-responsive....seriously? Is there no limit to your blatant dishonesty? The only one in need of some face saving is you dude. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have repeatedly proved you wrong. I have provided references to back up my posts, you have not. You have done none of those things. You don't like the truth. That's not my problem. That's your problem. Once again for your edification, the Electoral College is a vestige of our slavery past. It benefited slave states at the expense of free states, and I have given you references to back that up. If we believe in a democracy, if we truly believe in democracy, then all votes should have equal value. It really is that simple. But you and your Republican cohorts don't believe in democracy, hence you oppose eliminating the very undemocratic aspects of our government like the Electoral College and gerrymandering. As demonstrated by your posts, Republicans cannot be honest. Because if they were, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't follow them. Republicans don't favor democracy, they don't want all votes to have equal value, because if they did, Republicans wouldn't control Congress or the presidency. That's the truth here. You need to begin being honest here and stop the obfuscation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, as is that post. I made clear, concise points and you didn't respond to any of them. It isn't that hard, Joe. Let's take them one at a time: 1. Virginia was a slave state at the time of the Revolution. Agree? [edit] Also, regarding your sources: the Time source is the same as the CNN source I alluded to earlier, with a clear-cut falsehood (claiming that big state vs small state had nothing to do with it). As I said, if you would like to blame it on the media, I'll accept that....though since you got backwards which states were which, that does make it more difficult for me to pretend to believe....
Democrats are opposed to a republican form of government either. No democrat is calling for a change in our republican form of government. In a democracy, the majority rules. That's not what we have here. Twice in the last 16 years the will of the majority has been subverted by the will of the few owing to the Electoral College. That's a problem. We cannot call ourselves a democracy if the few can subvert the majority. In a democracy, the majority rules. Democracy: " government by the people; especially: rule of the majority" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
You seem to be contrasting "small" with "slave" - that doesn't work: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf
I'm aware that it isn't clear-cut that big=slave and small=free. But since Joe blew his fuse and I can't even get him to acknowledge that Virginia=big=forwarded the Virginia Plan and New Jersey=small=forwarded the New Jersey plan, the next step to showing that the issue that led to the structure of Congress and the Electoral College was big vs small, not free vs slave is well beyond his grasp. Baby steps.
