Nancy that has to hurt

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:07 am

Doc wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:11 pm

Leftist Slate.com after Obama won in 2012:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... llege.html
In Defense of the Electoral College
Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president.
Leftist Slate.com after Trump won in 2016:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/1 ... exism.html
The Electoral College Is an Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism
2012 - Obama won so the electoral college system must be good?

2016 - Hillary lost so the system must be bad?

:lol: They can't have it both ways.

:?: :?: :? Was Obama supposed to have been left wing?

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1942
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Jim the Moron » Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:07 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:11 pm

Leftist Slate.com after Obama won in 2012:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... llege.html
In Defense of the Electoral College
Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president.
Leftist Slate.com after Trump won in 2016:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/1 ... exism.html
The Electoral College Is an Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism
2012 - Obama won so the electoral college system must be good?

2016 - Hillary lost so the system must be bad?

:lol: They can't have it both ways.

:?: :?: :? Was Obama supposed to have been left wing?

Electoral College pros and cons are an eons-old subject of argument. But to put it in today's context - without the EC, POTUS candidates would be consigned to campaigning in large centers of population exclusively, with the focus on the interests of consumers and not of the producers - farmers, factory workers, etc.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:12 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:29 pm
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:43 pm
----
Neverfail,

I think the reason for the electoral college was not because of slavery. It was because of the distrust of democracy by the majority of the Founding Fathers.
A significant number of whom, including Jefferson, Madison and Washington, were slave owners from Virginia. Enough said!

(That type would have viewed even non-property owning free white working class people as only one jump above slaves and well beneath themselves in social status.)
I don't think their distrust for democracy came from their snooty attitude as you implied. Their distrust of democracy, as I said, was because they felt that the majority of Americans at that time, were illiterate and lack reliable information of what was going on in faraway Washington. As I said, there was no internet, TV or radio in those days. Newspapers were few and most can't read anyway. Don't you think the Founding Fathers were right to distrust democracy?

Electing the President by popular vote would have meant allowing uninformed, uneducated people to choose the chief executive of the USA. Under the circumstances prevailing in 1789, I would say the FF were right. To do otherwise would have been folly.

cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:43 pm
The South wanted to include their slave population so that they will get more representatives in the House or Representatives. In the end, they compromised. Each slave would be counted as 3/5 of a white person.
No they did NOT want to include them in the voting process (if this is what you are suggesting)! The slaves were not allowed to vote (as you correctly point out) and had no say in how their "votes" were used. Instead the slave owners got to vote in the name of their slaves - which meant that they voted for whoever they wanted, not the way their slaves might have wanted them to vote.

It meant if a slave owner in Virginia or South Carolina (for instance) owned 5 slaves he got to cast 3 additional votes on election day in addition to the vote he was entitled to cast as a white property owner. A total of 4 votes. By contrast a non-slave owning freeman in New York state or New England if he qualified as a voter was only entitled to cast but one vote.

If you cannot by now see how this was a gigantic gerrymander to favour the southern states (and in particular their elites of slave owning wealthy planters) then you must be utterly devoid of imagination.
I think you misunderstood. Every Southern voter got one vote - same as the Northern voter. Now let me explain with a hypothetical example. Suppose a northern state had a population of 100,000 people and a southern slave owning state had a population of 100,000 people.

So, fairness demands that both states should have the same number of Congressmen for the House of Representative. Let's say the number is 10 for each state. So each Congressman represents 10,000 people in his district. But the Northerners then said,"Not so fast. Out of your 100,000 people in your Southern state, 50,000 are slaves. They can't vote. So you should only get 5 representatives.

The Southerners then replied, "But the slaves do productive work. They produce cotton which were sold to Europe. So they contribute to the prosperity of the USA. So we demand 10 representatives."

In the end, each slave counted for 3/5 of a white. This was a compromise. So in this hypothetical example, that Southern state would have ended up with 8 representatives (or what you call MPs).

Do you understand now? Where did you get the idea that a Southern voter could end up with more than one vote? It was all about the number of Representatives or what you call MPs.

In any case, this had nothing to do with the electoral college.
(...and yes Cassowary, I am aware that there was not a single country on earth in those days that chose government via a voting mandate of universal adult suffrage. That did not make the 1789 US electoral college set-up as anything less than a gerrymander designed to vest political power in the hands of one particular select group of people. )
Do you think the Northerners would have agreed to giving the South an electoral advantage? No. In fact, each side was jockeying for power. Each side was trying to get more Congressmen to represent them. Neither side wanted to be dominated by the other. So it did not happen. Again, let me repeat that the electoral college did not give the South any electoral advantage.
The Imp :D

Jim the Moron
Posts: 1942
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Jim the Moron » Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:07 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:11 pm

Leftist Slate.com after Obama won in 2012:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... llege.html
In Defense of the Electoral College
Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president.
Leftist Slate.com after Trump won in 2016:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/1 ... exism.html
The Electoral College Is an Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism
2012 - Obama won so the electoral college system must be good?

2016 - Hillary lost so the system must be bad?

:lol: They can't have it both ways.

:?: :?: :? Was Obama supposed to have been left wing?

Electoral College pros and cons are an eons-old subject of argument. But to put it in today's context - without the EC, POTUS candidates would be consigned to campaigning in large centers of population exclusively, with the focus on the interests of consumers and not of the producers - farmers, factory workers, etc.
Why all the historic palaver? The electors exist. Life goes on. Deal with it.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Doc » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:16 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:07 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:11 pm

Leftist Slate.com after Obama won in 2012:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... llege.html
In Defense of the Electoral College
Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president.
Leftist Slate.com after Trump won in 2016:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/1 ... exism.html
The Electoral College Is an Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism
2012 - Obama won so the electoral college system must be good?

2016 - Hillary lost so the system must be bad?

:lol: They can't have it both ways.

:?: :?: :? Was Obama supposed to have been left wing?

Electoral College pros and cons are an eons-old subject of argument. But to put it in today's context - without the EC, POTUS candidates would be consigned to campaigning in large centers of population exclusively, with the focus on the interests of consumers and not of the producers - farmers, factory workers, etc.
Why all the historic palaver? The electors exist. Life goes on. Deal with it.
That is exactly what Hillary forgot in 2016. The electoral college requires candidate get out and campaign across the country. She didn't really do that. Because of her health or her lack of campaigning skill or lack of interest in talking to people face to face that disagree with her. Or all of the above.

This is what happens when you demonize those that aren't going to vote for you. It is not fun to be in places where you have to talk to them face to face.


(crowd laughs)

That is the real problem with the Electoral College you get bit in the butt when you don't feel you need the support of much of the country. That they are easy to dismiss as "less them human" "bad people".

She also say she was going to put coal miners out of work. among other things.

Now the Democrat Establishment is doing the same thing to candidates "that aren't one of them."

People have the right to express their opinion at the ballot bos. You may hate their expression You may hate the idea of they might win. But if you want to win by hook or crook, denying them their right to express their desire at the ballot box, how and where else are they supposed to express that opinion? In a concentration camp? From behind a gun?
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
lzzrdgrrl
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:18 pm
Location: Okie Doke

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by lzzrdgrrl » Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:28 pm

I have a certain notoriety among the lesser gods........

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:31 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:12 am

I think you misunderstood. Every Southern voter got one vote - same as the Northern voter. Now let me explain with a hypothetical example. Suppose a northern state had a population of 100,000 people and a southern slave owning state had a population of 100,000 people.

So, fairness demands that both states should have the same number of Congressmen for the House of Representative.
No, it means nothing of the sort Cassowary!

In the US House of Representatives the number of Congressmen elected reflects the number of VOTERS enrolled; not the state's overall demographic size.

If, relative to the size of the population, the percentage of those eligible to vote in a typical non-slave northern state was higher than in a typical southern slave state of similar demographic size; then that should be regarded as clear evidence of the northern states' higher economic solvency and social propriety and if anything rewarded with additional congressmen in Washington DC.

Instead, the system devised dishonestly rewarded the Southern states with gratuitous additional political power and influence for holding a significant section of their population in unrewarded, forced labour subjugation.

When it comes to "states rights" then the Senate, the upper house of Congress, was inaugurated for that reason. I believe that until the reform of 1946 US Senators were not even elected by the public but directly APPOINTED by state governments. Since each state, regardless of population size or number of voters, was (and still is) represented by the same number of Senators.

With this (checks and balances) safeguard in mind, why should the southern slave states (and other slacker regions of the US? ) be awarded lower house representation above and beyond their just deserts?

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by neverfail » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:44 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 am

Electoral College pros and cons are an eons-old subject of argument. But to put it in today's context - without the EC, POTUS candidates would be consigned to campaigning in large centers of population exclusively, with the focus on the interests of consumers and not of the producers - farmers, factory workers, etc.
JIM; why do you think that the USA, along with other "advanced" countries ( :idea: in the case of the USA; advanced in the economic and technological sense, not in terms of political and institutional maturity ;) ) has large population centers anyway?

It is because these are the country's areas of greatest economic viability. They attract such large, dense populations because that is where the bulk of opportunity to earn a decent livelihood lie.

Other parts of the US are more sparsely populated presumably because they are economically less viable.

By compelling candidates to go out and campaign in these less viable back-blocks regions they put them in the position of having to commit themselves to policies that help prop up these down-at -heel regions (like additional farm subsidies) resulting (if and when elected) a wastage of the nation's resources and a drag on the fortunes of the regions of your country with potential for unassisted, higher economic growth.

A lose-lose situation for the country at large!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by cassowary » Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:50 pm

neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:31 pm
cassowary wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:12 am

I think you misunderstood. Every Southern voter got one vote - same as the Northern voter. Now let me explain with a hypothetical example. Suppose a northern state had a population of 100,000 people and a southern slave owning state had a population of 100,000 people.

So, fairness demands that both states should have the same number of Congressmen for the House of Representative.
No, it means nothing of the sort Cassowary!

In the US House of Representatives the number of Congressmen elected reflects the number of VOTERS enrolled; not the state's overall demographic size.

If, relative to the size of the population, the percentage of those eligible to vote in a typical non-slave northern state was higher than in a typical southern slave state of similar demographic size; then that should be regarded as clear evidence of the northern states' higher economic solvency and social propriety and if anything rewarded with additional congressmen in Washington DC.

Instead, the system devised dishonestly rewarded the Southern states with gratuitous additional political power and influence for holding a significant section of their population in unrewarded, forced labour subjugation.

When it comes to "states rights" then the Senate, the upper house of Congress, was inaugurated for that reason. I believe that until the reform of 1946 US Senators were not even elected by the public but directly APPOINTED by state governments. Since each state, regardless of population size or number of voters, was (and still is) represented by the same number of Senators.

With this (checks and balances) safeguard in mind, why should the southern slave states (and other slacker regions of the US? ) be awarded lower house representation above and beyond their just deserts?
I already answered your question, Neverfail. The Southern argument was that the slaves were economically productive growing cotton which was sold to Europe and contributing to the prosperity of America. So they needed to be counted.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2774
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Nancy that has to hurt

Post by Milo » Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:34 pm

Doc wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:16 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:46 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 am
neverfail wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:07 am
Doc wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:11 pm

Leftist Slate.com after Obama won in 2012:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... llege.html
In Defense of the Electoral College
Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president.
Leftist Slate.com after Trump won in 2016:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/1 ... exism.html
The Electoral College Is an Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism
2012 - Obama won so the electoral college system must be good?

2016 - Hillary lost so the system must be bad?

:lol: They can't have it both ways.

:?: :?: :? Was Obama supposed to have been left wing?

Electoral College pros and cons are an eons-old subject of argument. But to put it in today's context - without the EC, POTUS candidates would be consigned to campaigning in large centers of population exclusively, with the focus on the interests of consumers and not of the producers - farmers, factory workers, etc.
Why all the historic palaver? The electors exist. Life goes on. Deal with it.
That is exactly what Hillary forgot in 2016. The electoral college requires candidate get out and campaign across the country. She didn't really do that. Because of her health or her lack of campaigning skill or lack of interest in talking to people face to face that disagree with her. Or all of the above.

This is what happens when you demonize those that aren't going to vote for you. It is not fun to be in places where you have to talk to them face to face.


(crowd laughs)

That is the real problem with the Electoral College you get bit in the butt when you don't feel you need the support of much of the country. That they are easy to dismiss as "less them human" "bad people".

She also say she was going to put coal miners out of work. among other things.

Now the Democrat Establishment is doing the same thing to candidates "that aren't one of them."

People have the right to express their opinion at the ballot bos. You may hate their expression You may hate the idea of they might win. But if you want to win by hook or crook, denying them their right to express their desire at the ballot box, how and where else are they supposed to express that opinion? In a concentration camp? From behind a gun?
Clinton made some notable mistakes but one of the biggest was deciding to campaign in rural, more marginal, states; rather than focus on urban strongholds, notably Michigan. So I don't buy your explanation. In fact I think it was the opposite.

Post Reply