The Real Reason for the Electoral College? Slavery

[GaryDog]

Not saying a vote for Trump was necessarily racist. Just pointing out the origins of the EC. If you take personal offense, that says a lot more about you.

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole. Adults are talking.

You're not an adult. You're a whinging pajamaboi who is barking according to the Loser Prog Dog Whistle.

Nobody believes these ad nauseum accusations of RACISM anymore (except of course, for your fellow diehard moonbats). You've worn out the "deplorable" categories by overusing them against anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinions.

So let me get this straight: You don't think the slaveholders in 18th century America were racist? Or for that matter, ALL of the founding fathers?

Or do you just not understand the point of the OP, and your knee jerks anytime ANYONE mentions race, because, you know, you're actually racist?

The fallacy of nunc pro tunc is not going to cut it.

I've not used any of the framers' racism to color Trump supporters. I've made that very clear. If the trump supporters are overly sensitive, that's not my fault, and it's certainly not the result of a fallacious argument. It's the result of a misunderstanding by Trump supporters, which stands to reason because most of them are idiots.

 

[Tennyson]

You just justified one of the purposes of the electoral college.

You are still avoiding my question regardless of your sophmoric ad hominem.

I justified a purpose of the EC?

I'm not avoiding any of your questions. I've answered it in full. Right now I believe you have some sort of weird agenda with your questions, in our quest to justify the EC when it's eminently unfair as devised in 1787. You realize slaves couldn't vote, right? Therefore their masters got to use the existence of these slaves to improve their voice in congress (a voice which was devoted to keeping slaves enslaved).

In what way did the slave states NOT have an advantage, given these facts?

You have used one of the reasons for the electoral college. That is why the Constitution was ratified.

I am waiting for you to give me the number of whites in the southern states and the number of whites in the other states. Then calculate the number of slaves in each multiplied by .6 for congressional representation to 1800.

I don't need to do that. The link I provided in the OP did that calculation. It's clear John Adams, for example, would've won the presidency if not for the 3/5ths clause and the EC in 1800.

Nothing was broken down.

Three problems: it is a Vox, it is Akhil Reed Amar, and you are using a proxy argument.

You can either find the 1790 census and break it down as I specified or you cannot. It is that simple.

Uh, the source is your problem? Do you not have access to other sources? This is common knowledge. 11th grade history.

Electoral College is 'vestige' of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars


Also, did you read the article? It quoted JAMES MADISON HIMSELF.

Proxy argument? lol!

Contextomy is not acceptable.

You also did not quote James Madison. If you want to quote James Madison, you will need to cite where it came from and use the entire context. You actually found something someone said was a James Madison quote.

 

[GaryDog]

More specifically, states that limited suffrage in general opposed direct vote. I.e. states that did not value universal suffrage also valued the electoral college.

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

 

[Tennyson]

blah blah blah...yawn so sleepy zzzzzzz

Then go sleep, you pathetic asshole. Adults are talking.

You're not an adult. You're a whinging pajamaboi who is barking according to the Loser Prog Dog Whistle.

Nobody believes these ad nauseum accusations of RACISM anymore (except of course, for your fellow diehard moonbats). You've worn out the "deplorable" categories by overusing them against anyone who doesn't agree with your political opinions.

So let me get this straight: You don't think the slaveholders in 18th century America were racist? Or for that matter, ALL of the founding fathers?

Or do you just not understand the point of the OP, and your knee jerks anytime ANYONE mentions race, because, you know, you're actually racist?

The fallacy of nunc pro tunc is not going to cut it.

I've not used any of the framers' racism to color Trump supporters. I've made that very clear. If the trump supporters are overly sensitive, that's not my fault, and it's certainly not the result of a fallacious argument. It's the result of a misunderstanding by Trump supporters, which stands to reason because most of them are idiots.

What does Trump have to do with my statement?

 

[GaryDog]

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

Madison's Proposed Amendment

In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."

Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states. When the Constitution was drafted, small states were expected to be helped by the law stating that each state has one vote for president when the election went to the House (as it had had in 1800 and would again in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected over the more popular Andrew Jackson). Many Founders anticipated that such outcomes would become routine - meaning the electors would limit the field to three choices that the House would choose among, voting on the basis of one vote per state. George Mason, for one, predicted in 1787 that "nineteen times in twenty" there would be no winner of a majority of electoral votes and the president would be chosen in the House.

Madison saw this provision as highly problematic, however: "The present rule of voting for President by the H. of Reps. is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends."

 

[Tennyson]

More specifically, states that limited suffrage in general opposed direct vote. I.e. states that did not value universal suffrage also valued the electoral college.

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

I am not opening a commie anti-constitutional link to fair vote.

 

[Tennyson]

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

Madison's Proposed Amendment

In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."

Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states. When the Constitution was drafted, small states were expected to be helped by the law stating that each state has one vote for president when the election went to the House (as it had had in 1800 and would again in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected over the more popular Andrew Jackson). Many Founders anticipated that such outcomes would become routine - meaning the electors would limit the field to three choices that the House would choose among, voting on the basis of one vote per state. George Mason, for one, predicted in 1787 that "nineteen times in twenty" there would be no winner of a majority of electoral votes and the president would be chosen in the House.

Madison saw this provision as highly problematic, however: "The present rule of voting for President by the H. of Reps. is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends."

That has nothing to do with the electoral colllege and the Constitution's intent was created by hundreds of people and Madison was one man. Selectively picking statements by one person at one point is not an argument.

 

[The Great Goose]

Because..RACISM!

Shut the fuck up now.

 

[hunarcy]

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

In a direct election system, the South would have lost every time because a huge percentage of its population was slaves, and slaves couldn't vote. But an Electoral College allows states to count slaves, albeit at a discount (the three-fifths clause), and that's what gave the South the inside track in presidential elections. “And thus it's no surprise that eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian. (Virginia was the most populous state at the time, and had a massive slave population that boosted its electoral vote count.)”

This pro-slavery compromise was not clear to everyone when the Constitution was adopted, but it was clearly evident to everyone when the Electoral College was amended after the Jefferson-Adams contest of 1796 and 1800. These elections were decided, in large part, by the extra electoral votes created by slavery. Without the 13 extra electoral votes created by Southern slavery, John Adams would've won even in 1800, and every federalist knows that after the election.

And yet when the Constitution is amended, the slavery bias is preserved.

That's silly. The northern states consider slaves people, so they didn't want slaves in the south counted fully because it would give the slave states too much power while the slave states wanted them counted, leading to the 3/5 compromise. Honestly, the history is shameful enough without you lying about it.

 

[12icer]

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

Madison's Proposed Amendment

In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay>>>>>>>>>Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states.Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends."

And if you took the "Winner take all" from California, Illinois, and the Large population HIGH ec count states, and made the EC vote as the districts of their actual voter blocks did you would get a REPUBLICAN President every time BECAUSE there are more House members that are Republican of course one would have to assume that the voters would vote the same Up ticket as down, and the district would be voted as a Republican elector. The electoral college being controlled by the states as for the Block system is what wins dimocrats the elections they have won, you ignorant libs are damn fools if you think using just popular will win for you as all it will do is bring out all of the center American voters to erase you.