|
is this how foreigners feel when we try to explain the existence of the EC
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Like, election by popular vote wasn't really even on the agenda. It's not just the southern states - nobody particularly wanted it. Looks like James Wilson proposed it at one point, and it got shot down.quote:On the question for postponing Mr. Dickinson’s motion referring the appointment of the Senate to the State Legislatures, in order to consider Mr. Wilson’s for referring it to the people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:No, the reasoning there (people will just vote for the candidate from their own state) was why they rejected a popular vote as the method. But I don't think (?) that federal abolition was really on the agenda at the time, just the relative balance of states with similar economic interests, and in any case, the composition of congress is way more critical for that (hence the 3/5ths compromise) than the election of the president. It was absolutely a fear of the South and was absolutely a sticking point in their ratification of the constitution. It doesn't have to be on any proposed federal agenda, it was just known that the population in the North supported abolition and they didn't want to lose slavery down the line. Abolition was a movement growing ever since like 1730-1740. jBrereton posted:No I would wager that as a result of Virginia being a very old, physically safe, and wealthy state by American standards at that time, and the framers of the Constitution knowing each other after it was done if not long before, the executive was controlled for 32 of the next 36 years by Virginians. Without EC, Virginia is not a big deal population wise. With the EC and the 3/5ths compromise, Virginia had the most EC votes. If you think that wasn't intentional idk what to say. I mean look we can argue why the EC really started back and forth all day but the fact of the matter is that the EC + the 3/5ths compromise is what convinced the South to ratify and there's no good reason to have an EC in modern day whatsoever. Strudel Man posted:Like, election by popular vote wasn't really even on the agenda. It's not just the southern states - nobody particularly wanted it. Looks like James Wilson proposed it at one point, and it got shot down. And that was about the make up of the upper house, not the executive office. Popular vote for senators vs appointment of senators by state legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States) posted:More contentious than the lower house was the question of the upper house. Few agreed with Madison that its members should be elected by the lower house. James Wilson suggested election by popular vote versus election by state legislature, but his proposal was shot down 10-1 by the delegates.[18] Which obv was later changed with the 17th amendment. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 22:15 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:And that was about the make up of the upper house, not the executive office. Popular vote for senators vs appointment of senators by state legislature. quote:I mean look we can argue why the EC really started back and forth all day but the fact of the matter is that the EC + the 3/5ths compromise is what convinced the South to ratify and there's no good reason to have an EC in modern day whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Hell, you're right. Quite an error on my part. I can't, in that case, find any suggestion that direct popular election of the presidency was even voted on at all, which I suppose only reaffirms that it wasn't on the table. Maybe I guess. I'm not super well versed in the particulars. Strudel Man posted:The 3/5ths compromise, absolutely. It's the electoral college specifically for which your argument is far weaker. I'll take it  But considering both happened (3/5ths and EC) during the 1787 convention they're probably somewhat related yeah? I mean yeah it's not the strongest argument but I still think there's no good reason to keep the EC around nowadays. Bc honestly even if it did or didn't come from slavery, what matters is how it functions today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:EC was meant for slavers originally although the "represent smaller states" rationalization came later i gotta say the slave states were playing the long game there, and boy howdy did it pay off in the end
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I don't know if you realize this, but you haven't actually said anything. and yet it was somehow more than you you have said less than nothing i have forgotten things reading your sentences
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
If California wants more say it should start breaking up into like 10 smaller states
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:EC votes are meaningless. We go strongly blue every time and everyone knows it thus no campaigning happens here and thanks to how swing states work our votes are literally not worth as much. Thanks to EC, millions of votes in CA straight didn't matter. Abolition happened. Racism is here to stay. This fight has been going since the reconstruction and good luck getting Kingfish to admit that there is a racist component. We could turn into skeletons while typing, he will just repeat the same point over and over. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:But considering both happened (3/5ths and EC) during the 1787 convention they're probably somewhat related yeah? But yeah, that purpose was probably naive to begin with, and is thoroughly obsolete given that the logical alternative to the EC now is not legislative appointment but popular vote. It's a vestige that serves little or no reasonable purpose. Strudel Man has issued a correction as of 23:28 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The rest is pretty important! The 3/5ths compromise was indeed because of slavery, but the electoral college itself wasn't. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:If California wants more say it should start breaking up into like 10 smaller states a few years ago some silicon valley guy tried to break california up into 6 states and it failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
gently caress that. The solution to CA getting snubbed is not to break ourselves up piecemeal into a bunch of inferior states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:a few years ago some silicon valley guy tried to break california up into 6 states and it failed. edit: Yep. quote:The California Legislative Analyst's Office, in a report that covered a wide variety of impacts, noted a wide disparity of incomes and tax bases in the proposed states. The report estimated that the state of Silicon Valley would have the nation's highest per capita personal income (PCPI) whereas the state of Central California would have the nation's lowest PCPI. But it definitely wasn't an attempt to avoid sharing tax money with the poors, don't even think it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
I thought it was bizarre as hell that it would put Orange County and Los Angeles County in separate states, since Orange County is definitely part of the greater Los Angeles area no matter what the delusional idiots in south county like to think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:a few years ago some silicon valley guy tried to break california up into 6 states and it failed. He's a big supporter of bitcoins too
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the executive branch was originally proposed as being elected by something like a popular vote, and then the counter proposal was election by state legislature, and the EC was sort of the compromise between the two, no? and then states would select electors based either on the state popular vote or the state legislature or some other method as they saw fit? It's been a while since I've read the source material.
Olga Gurlukovich has issued a correction as of 00:20 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
blamegame posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the executive branch was originally proposed as being elected by something like a popular vote, and then the counter proposal was election by state legislature, and the EC was sort of the compromise between the two, no? and then states would select electors based either on the state popular vote or the state legislature or some other method as they saw fit? It's been a while since I've read the source material. James Madison, July 19th, 1787 posted:The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
blamegame posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the executive branch was originally proposed as being elected by something like a popular vote, and then the counter proposal was election by state legislature, and the EC was sort of the compromise between the two, no? and then states would select electors based either on the popular vote or the state legislature or some other method as they saw fit? It's been a while since I've read the source material. quote:Mr. Wilson renewed his declarations in favor of an appointment by the people. He wished to derive not only both branches of the Legislature from the people, without the intervention of the State Legislatures 〈but the Executive also;〉 in order to make them as independent as possible of each other, as well as of the States; The nearest thing to a vote on that, though, actually seems like it closely resembled the electoral college: quote:in order to take up the following resolution submitted by Mr Wilson. namely. “To be chosen by the national legislature for the term of seven years” passed, 8-2. The obvious problem with a direct vote was that, even apart from the issue of slavery specifically, different states had different qualifications for suffrage, and direct counting would have favored whichever was the most expansive. Plus the difficulty of accurate tabulation of everyone, I suppose. Strudel Man has issued a correction as of 00:32 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
I don't understand the point of arguing about the origin of the electoral college.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Rubellavator posted:I don't understand the point of arguing about the origin of the electoral college. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:There were a few suggestions along those lines: I like how you ignored the post right before yours... Rubellavator posted:I don't understand the point of arguing about the origin of the electoral college. Because if you can continue to willfully ignore the origin of it then the purpose of it becomes less obvious and the process of questioning it becomes muddled. To simplify: Racism is over because Obama got elected is much like The electoral college has a legitimate purpose and is not a tool whose first use was the perpetuation of slavery, followed by its use in the perpetuation of the southern strategy. So, it's a legitimate part of the constitution that need not be questioned, right? To which I say: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
An alternate history in which slaves were given the right to vote, but still were slaves, should be the next book by the guy who wrote guns of the south imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Big Fat Iguana posted:An alternate history in which slaves were given the right to vote, but still were slaves, should be the next book by the guy who wrote guns of the south imo They were not given the right to vote. They were counted as votes. Very very different. They were basically counted as votes to keep them enslave and get their masters elected as president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
That's why I want an alternate history novel
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
yeah I know but like everything in the first 90 years of america is basically all about trying to find a 'compromise' between the slave owning agrarian southern aristocrats and the banking manufacturing northern bougie oligarchs, but sometimes they would talk around it
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:I like how you ignored the post right before yours... Madison's quote there is of some significance, but using one slice of a statement from a man at the time speaking hypothetically rather than retrospectively in order to appraise the overall goal of the institution seems a bit silly. The matter of the election of the president was decided/discussed later, on September 4-7 - you can see the nature of the debate for yourself, and notice that the issue of slavery does not seem to play a part in it. Rather, the major concerns appear to be re-eligibility, whether electors will have enough information about the various candidates to decide who among them is the best choice, whether the Senate will have too much power over the executive, and avoiding unseemly politicking in the legislature over a presidential selection. Princess Di posted:The electoral college has a legitimate purpose and is not a tool whose first use was the perpetuation of slavery, followed by its use in the perpetuation of the southern strategy. Strudel Man has issued a correction as of 10:55 on Dec 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:To simplify: All the EC does is give smaller states slightly more representational power. There's nothing racist about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Rubellavator posted:All the EC does is give smaller states slightly more representational power. There's nothing racist about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
The EC gives a lot of preference to the whims of state lines. As an example, giving the Florida panhandle to Alabama (which has been tried) would turn Florida into a safely blue state, and giving Toledo to Michigan and the UP to Wisconsin (again, another actual border dispute between the states) would turn Michigan into a state that would lean blue. And like so many things in pre-Civil War American history, many of those state lines come back to slavery, since a lot of states admitted to the union were split in half and admitted in pairs in order to have one free state and one slave state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Rubellavator posted:All the EC does is give smaller states slightly more representational power. There's nothing racist about that. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Logically, if we're going to abolish the Electoral College, shouldn't we abolish the Senate too, since it gives a disproportionately large say to states like Wyoming compared to states like California?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Your creativity is mind-numbing... -ly absent.   It sucks to lack fresh ideas, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Princess Di posted:Your creativity is mind-numbing... To be fair, all I've seen you do is post the same tired, unfunny gifs and emoticons over and over again in lieu of saying anything substantive. I mean, I saw a few posts of yours with actual words in them, but they were in every-one-line-sentence-is-a-paragraph format so I skipped over them on principle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:To be fair, all I've seen you do is post the same tired, unfunny gifs and emoticons over and over again in lieu of saying anything substantive. I mean, I saw a few posts of yours with actual words in them, but they were in every-one-line-sentence-is-a-paragraph format so I skipped over them on principle. So you skipped my words, but you are complaining about lack of substance in what I have to say. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Logically, if we're going to abolish the Electoral College, shouldn't we abolish the Senate too, since it gives a disproportionately large say to states like Wyoming compared to states like California? We can't abolish the senate. It's one of the few provisions of the Constitution specifically protected from Amendment. What we can do though is shift powers from the Senate to other things until it becomes more ceremonnial, sort of like the House of Lords.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
I would fix the proportion issues with the House, and the gerrymandering thingy, before we start devolutionizing the Senate's powers. Right now because it cannot be gerrymandered the Senate is literally less bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
or we could devote our energy towards making sure better people win downticket races so we don't have to do a bunch of wanking about how we'd totally fix the legislative branch with this One Neat Trick
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Just locally organize you big bunch of babies. Typical of bourgeois liberals to call for a fantasy fix-all solution at the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 02:06
|
|
