The Purpose of the Electoral College

[Pogo]

Illogical.
"Oh look, I spilled macaroni on the floor. I'll grab a paper towel and clean it up ---- or I guess I can just "move".

This is the cognate to the other wags who can't think of a counterargument, know they have no position, and tell me to "STFU". Two ways of trying to dismiss the inconvenient. Two ways that are also never going to work.

Well... aside from Amending the Constitution, which is not going to happen over this, that's really your only option... or you can just whine like a little bitch about it. Bottom line is, you are stuck with the EC.

"..... and therefore STFU"?

Ain't gonna happen Goober. EVER.

 

[Boss]

So this is what it comes down to --- a black guy defending slavery.

Where did I defend slavery?

Slavery was terrible but it was a reality. This stupid notion that it only existed in southern states and the northern states all wanted to get rid of it is ignorant of history. Northern states benefited from the cotton industry, probably more than the South. There were also slaves in the North, albeit nowhere near as many, however, that was because cotton doesn't grow up north.

 

[Boss]

"..... and therefore STFU"?

Ain't gonna happen Goober. EVER.

Then keep whining like a little bitch... I don't care.

 

[Pogo]

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Well that's exactly what it was. You choose the opposite perspective which is why it's called a "compromise". Still, it has nothing to do with present times because... uhm... we don't have slaves anymore and instead, we have the 14th Amendment.

By all means elucidate ---- splain to the class how artificially inflating your population numbers .... and therefore your electoral vote power --- by counting sixty percent of humans you keep in captivity while giving them zero voice in their own fortunes (in effect grabbing extra power for yourself on their backs) ---- is somehow ensuring "that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented".

I've GOT to watch you try to wiggle out of this one.

You're busted nine ways to Sunday.

 

[Pogo]

"..... and therefore STFU"?

Ain't gonna happen Goober. EVER.

Then keep whining like a little bitch... I don't care.

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be standing here without an argument imploring me to "move" .

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority".

And as the liberal whiners and rioters have amply demonstrated, the Framers were correct to do so.

 

[Pogo]

So this is what it comes down to --- a black guy defending slavery.

Where did I defend slavery?

Slavery was terrible but it was a reality. This stupid notion that it only existed in southern states and the northern states all wanted to get rid of it is ignorant of history. Northern states benefited from the cotton industry, probably more than the South. There were also slaves in the North, albeit nowhere near as many, however, that was because cotton doesn't grow up north.

Excellent refutation of points I never made. Strawmen-R-us.

For those with reading comprehension what I posted about with Virginia and the South and the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Nullification Crisis and using the EC as an avenue to power used by one large state to dominate the rest, was all about grabbing political power ---- not about who had slavery or who grew cotton.

 

[P@triot]

With all due respect wihosa - you clearly have no idea what the purpose of the Electoral College is. It was to ensure that two massive cities (or even states) like New York and Chicago do not decide how the entire country will be run for 50 states. It was designed to ensure every state had a say in the future of their own country, while still recognizing that a densely populated state had more weight in the process. That's why Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes while California has 55.

It's completely fair, it's completely rational, and it works flawlessly when there is no progressive voter fraud involved.

And oh yeah....by the way....

Jill Stein Giving Up On Recount After Result Show WIDER Trump Victory

 

[Pogo]

With all due respect wihosa - you clearly have no idea what the purpose of the Electoral College is. It was to ensure that two massive cities (or even states) like New York and Chicago do not decide how the entire country will be run for 50 states. It was designed to ensure every state had a say in the future of their own country, while still recognizing that a densely populated state had more weight in the process. That's why Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes while California has 55.

Horseshit, Buttsoiler. There were no "massive cities" then. Most Americans lived on farms. Dumbass.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There were no "massive cities" then. Most Americans lived on farms.

And counties with the cities of the time, were far more massive than counties with mostly farms.

Unsurprising that little Pogo, having no coherent argument, resorts to dwelling on a triviality... and even got THAT wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Jill Stein Giving Up On Recount After Result Show WIDER Trump Victory

But, but, but she wasn't doing the recount to defeat Trump, but to increase the public's respect for the integrity of the voting process. She said so on TV, I heard her!

Would she lie?

 

[imawhosure]

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Well that's exactly what it was. You choose the opposite perspective which is why it's called a "compromise". Still, it has nothing to do with present times because... uhm... we don't have slaves anymore and instead, we have the 14th Amendment.

By all means elucidate ---- splain to the class how artificially inflating your population numbers .... and therefore your electoral vote power --- by counting sixty percent of humans you keep in captivity while giving them zero voice in their own fortunes (in effect grabbing extra power for yourself on their backs) ---- is somehow ensuring "that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented".

I've GOT to watch you try to wiggle out of this one.

You're busted nine ways to Sunday.

"..... and therefore STFU"?

Ain't gonna happen Goober. EVER.

Then keep whining like a little bitch... I don't care.

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be standing here without an argument imploring me to "move" .

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority".

And as the liberal whiners and rioters have amply demonstrated, the Framers were correct to do so.

I read this thread from front to back. Maybe I missed it, but there would not of been a United States without the electoral college. for the reasons Boss has put forth. The Senate and EC were put in to insure States rights. The states collectively, are supposed to wield far more power than the federal government, and the WEAKEST branch of the federal government is supposed to be the executive. The leftists have stood original intent on its proverbial head!

And so, consider------------> Why would leftists want to go to popular vote? ANSWER----------->how many states do republicans control, and how many do Democrats control? It is obvious why leftists would want to continue towards removing states rights when fully more than 3/5ths of them are opposed to how leftists govern. You have to remember a few realities-----------> of the 700 county's carried by Obama in 12, Trump flipped 1/3rd of them. This is a BAAAAAAAD sign for far leftists, and the only way for them reassert their power quickly, is to make the Presidency all powerful like it was under Obama, then insure they get their person elected by removing states rights in the EC.

In all honesty, they were that close to changing America forever had Trump lost. It is not that Trump is so great in my book, but if Hilly would have gotten in, congress would have become totally useless as EOs would fall from the sky since the left would then know they would NEVER lose. We avoided that disaster by the skin of our teeth, and now we MUST insure these Socialist/Marxist get their butts handed to them in 18.

With government under Republican control for at least 2 years, they MUST pass laws and not use EOs. With them naming the Supreme Court justice or 2, or 3, they can stop the executive branch from over reaching next time a leftist is elected as long as it is laws. And with the states being firmly in control of repubs, we might have actually saved the republic; much to the chagrin of leftists everywhere who wanted socialism!

 

[Pogo]

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Well that's exactly what it was. You choose the opposite perspective which is why it's called a "compromise". Still, it has nothing to do with present times because... uhm... we don't have slaves anymore and instead, we have the 14th Amendment.

By all means elucidate ---- splain to the class how artificially inflating your population numbers .... and therefore your electoral vote power --- by counting sixty percent of humans you keep in captivity while giving them zero voice in their own fortunes (in effect grabbing extra power for yourself on their backs) ---- is somehow ensuring "that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented".

I've GOT to watch you try to wiggle out of this one.

You're busted nine ways to Sunday.

"..... and therefore STFU"?

Ain't gonna happen Goober. EVER.

Then keep whining like a little bitch... I don't care.

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be standing here without an argument imploring me to "move" .

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority".

And as the liberal whiners and rioters have amply demonstrated, the Framers were correct to do so.

I read this thread from front to back. Maybe I missed it, but there would not of been a United States without the electoral college. for the reasons Boss has put forth. The Senate and EC were put in to insure States rights. The states collectively, are supposed to wield far more power than the federal government, and the WEAKEST branch of the federal government is supposed to be the executive. The leftists have stood original intent on its proverbial head!

And so, consider------------> Why would leftists want to go to popular vote? ANSWER----------->how many states do republicans control, and how many do Democrats control? It is obvious why leftists would want to continue towards removing states rights when fully more than 3/5ths of them are opposed to how leftists govern. You have to remember a few realities-----------> of the 700 county's carried by Obama in 12, Trump flipped 1/3rd of them. This is a BAAAAAAAD sign for far leftists, and the only way for them reassert their power quickly, is to make the Presidency all powerful like it was under Obama, then insure they get their person elected by removing states rights in the EC.

In all honesty, they were that close to changing America forever had Trump lost. It is not that Trump is so great in my book, but if Hilly would have gotten in, congress would have become totally useless as EOs would fall from the sky since the left would then know they would NEVER lose. We avoided that disaster by the skin of our teeth, and now we MUST insure these Socialist/Marxist get their butts handed to them in 18.

With government under Republican control for at least 2 years, they MUST pass laws and not use EOs. With them naming the Supreme Court justice or 2, or 3, they can stop the executive branch from over reaching next time a leftist is elected as long as it is laws. And with the states being firmly in control of repubs, we might have actually saved the republic; much to the chagrin of leftists everywhere who wanted socialism!

See your doctor.

Don't know why you quoted me in that endless babble --- you didn't even begin to address it.

But I am waiting with my bag of proverbial popcorn to see how he's gonna try to wriggle out of it. I'm betting he just runs away.

 

[Boss]

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Well that's exactly what it was. You choose the opposite perspective which is why it's called a "compromise". Still, it has nothing to do with present times because... uhm... we don't have slaves anymore and instead, we have the 14th Amendment.

By all means elucidate ---- splain to the class how artificially inflating your population numbers .... and therefore your electoral vote power --- by counting sixty percent of humans you keep in captivity while giving them zero voice in their own fortunes (in effect grabbing extra power for yourself on their backs) ---- is somehow ensuring "that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented".

I've GOT to watch you try to wiggle out of this one.

You're busted nine ways to Sunday.

Of course.

At the time, the ONLY people who could vote were white male land owners. Women couldn't vote and people who didn't own land couldn't vote. However, the House of Representatives was intended to represent the interests of ALL the people. The apportionment of representatives had nothing to do with the number of people who could vote. It was made on the basis of population and it still is. Now, I am sure you're aware that children cannot vote... but they do count toward the population.

I really don't have anything to "wiggle out of" here. I suppose you could say we keep children in captivity, but nevertheless, they are afforded representation in the House.

 

[Boss]

Horseshit, Buttsoiler. There were no "massive cities" then. Most Americans lived on farms. Dumbass.

Most people in Boston, Philadelphia and New York didn't live on farms.

 

[Pogo]

And you actually sat there and tried to sell the idea of counting slaves as three-fifths of a person as a way to LESSEN the slaveholders' interests. Just to try to dance around being on the wrong side of this point.

Well that's exactly what it was. You choose the opposite perspective which is why it's called a "compromise". Still, it has nothing to do with present times because... uhm... we don't have slaves anymore and instead, we have the 14th Amendment.

By all means elucidate ---- splain to the class how artificially inflating your population numbers .... and therefore your electoral vote power --- by counting sixty percent of humans you keep in captivity while giving them zero voice in their own fortunes (in effect grabbing extra power for yourself on their backs) ---- is somehow ensuring "that the Southern slave states wouldn't be unreasonably represented".

I've GOT to watch you try to wiggle out of this one.

You're busted nine ways to Sunday.

Of course.

At the time, the ONLY people who could vote were white male land owners. Women couldn't vote and people who didn't own land couldn't vote. However, the House of Representatives was intended to represent the interests of ALL the people. The apportionment of representatives had nothing to do with the number of people who could vote. It was made on the basis of population and it still is. Now, I am sure you're aware that children cannot vote... but they do count toward the population.

I really don't have anything to "wiggle out of" here. I suppose you could say we keep children in captivity, but nevertheless, they are afforded representation in the House.

A population that was artificially inflated by adding a number of population that were humans owned by other people, meaning those owners stole extra votes off their backs since ALL that state's representation would represent the owners, and NONE the slaves. Meaning if you were a white landowner who had a hundred slaves, you were worth 61 people, while those hundred slaves were worth NOTHING.

The only reason it's called a "Compromise", Dippy, is that the slave states actually wanted to count ALL their slaves for the purpose of representation, while the free states called bullshit. So they carved up their human trafficking to a level of 60%.

And that's how Virginia got to run the jernt. Off the backs of human captives who had no voice in anything and whose interests were diametrically opposed to those who got that extra power in their name.

There's your "united" Electoral College, Sparkles. See it for what it is.

 

[Boss]

A population that was artificially inflated by adding a number of population that were humans owned by other people...

No different than children under 18 today.

Not artificially inflated... they existed, didn't they?

 

[Boss]

The only reason it's called a "Compromise", Dippy, is that the slave states actually wanted to count ALL their slaves for the purpose of representation, while the free states called bullshit. So they carved up their human trafficking to a level of 60%.

Right, they were all humans whether they voted or not. Just like children today are humans even though they don't vote. The reason they called it a compromise is because it was a compromise. Dippy!

 

[Boss]

And that's how Virginia got to run the jernt. Off the backs of human captives who had no voice in anything and whose interests were diametrically opposed to those who got that extra power in their name.

Neither did women, non land owners and children. Who got political power off their backs? You see... you're looking at it the wrong way. The makeup of the House was intended to be representative of the people... ALL the people... not just white male land owners. Even though, that was the only people who could vote.

 

[Pogo]

And that's how Virginia got to run the jernt. Off the backs of human captives who had no voice in anything and whose interests were diametrically opposed to those who got that extra power in their name.

Neither did women, non land owners and children. Who got political power off their backs? You see... you're looking at it the wrong way. The makeup of the House was intended to be representative of the people... ALL the people... not just white male land owners. Even though, that was the only people who could vote.

You don't pull extra representation off the backs of people whose interests are diametrically opposed to yours and the claim to be "representing" them, clown shoes. That's absolute bullshit, and there is no defence for it.

Interesting that you bring up women though --- there's another division. Not today, but after the Civil War when the Thirteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship rights including to ex-slaves.... specifically applied only to male citizens. And yet, as you just noted, women were counted for the purpose of representation. This meant that no state had any incentive to enfranchise women ---- what would they gain, since they were already counting the women who lived there? A given state could have granted women the vote and doubled their PV count... but their EC count would not have budged.

Consequently that didn't change for another half century, meaning women got their rights in spite of those divisions prolonged by the system .... not because of them.

Which just goes to prove that the system *can* be changed and its divisive dynamics *can* be countered.