neverfail wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:51 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:22 pm
neverfail wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:06 pm
cassowary wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:04 am
You never seem to understand anything.
I understand your contention with crystal clarity and I REJECT it!
Without explaining what is wrong with it.
Are you trying to give me the shits with pretended ignorance?
Re-read my posts on the topic!
If we need to reread your posts, we have to start at the beginning
If you click that link, you will see that i butted in to your discussion with Doc. You said that the electoral college system was a "filthy compromise" to entice the Southern states to join. It had nothing to do with that and I explained. why. The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery but with the election of the President.
As I said, it was implemented because the FF fathers distrusted democracy for good reasons which I gave. These include the lack of modern communications which rendered making an informed vote impossible for most voters. So it make sense to elect a bunch of electors who were expected to travel to Washington in familiarize with the candidates. I also pointed out that in the British Parliamentary system which the FF should be familiar with the PM also was not elected by popular vote but determined by the MPs.
I also generously mentioned the area of the Constitution where race was involved. It was not the electoral college which you claimed. It was the issue of how many representatives each state should have. As in Britain, the larger the population, the larger the number of Representatives or MPs. That is only fair. So should slaves be counted? I explained they decided on the 3/5 rule for the slaves. Then you replied to this.
Then true to your Marxist anti-American mindset, your reply here
was that the FF must have looked down on the ordinary Americans. In line with your Marxist mindset, CLASS conflict must be at work. The rich Americans wanted to keep down the poor.
You DID NOT REFUTE the reasons I gave which were totally reasonable. No internet, TV, radio and high rate of illiteracy make it impracticable for universal franchise. It was not CLASS convict which your Marxist mind insists to see.
Then you gave a totally wrong and bizzare reply saying that the slave owners were going to vote on behalf of the slaves. Let me quote:
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.
Your facts were wrong. But it did fit in to your insistence to see class oppression (also race). You thought that the Northerners would actually accept a constitution that allows a Southern slave owner to have four votes while the Northerner has only one each. That was bizarre.
The Northerners detested the institution of slavery and would like to see it abolished. The Southerners wanted to preserve it. There was the issue of new states that will eventually join the Union from the original 13. So both sides wanted more power to curtail, regulate if not abolish or preserve the institution. So each side needed as many Representatives or what you call MPs as possible. The battle lines for the Civil War was already drawn at America's founding. So how could there be a constitution that allows the Southerner to have more votes?
Then I replied.
I had to repeat the UNREFUTED argument that the original reason for the electoral college was the LACK of modern communications and high illiteracy and not "snootiness" at lower classes or what a Socialist call "class oppression".
In this reply, I also explained how the 3/5 rule operated since it was clear you did not understand. NOrmally, the number of Representatives or what you call MPs should be based on population size. But should slaves be counted? I explained that the North only wanted it to be based on the free (white) population while the South wanted the slave population to be counted. They argued that the slaves contributed to the economic prosperity and so should be counted. In the end, the 3/5 compromise was agreed upon.
Then came your reply.
You only focused on one part of my reply. You did not REFUTE my reasons for using the electoral college (lack of modern communications etc). Nor did you admit you were wrong earlier in your contention that a Southern voter could end up with more than one vote.
Instead, you said that the number of House Reps reflected the number of voters and not population which was not true. I was only explaining a general rule that the larger the population, the more MPs or Representatives you should get. Your reply insists that the rule in the US congress is that it is based on the number of voters. This suggests to me that you did not understand what I wrote.
It was precisely this dispute on whether to count the slaves (who don't vote) that resulted in the 3/5 compromise. You wrote:
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.
You see? Your Marxist mindset insists of seeing on seeing "labour subjugation", in this case of the slaves. Everything seems to filter through your Marxist lens, making it impossible to understand what was going on, despite my patient explanation.
Any explanation or fact that does not conform to class struggle or labour oppression is filtered out. That is why my explanation of the reasons for the electoral college (illiteracy and lack of modern communications) was not refuted but simply ignored. To you, it must be because of class oppression which in this case also involves race.
Then you asked, why should the South be given more representation than they deserved? This means that you did not understand or more likely ignored what I wrote about how the 3/5 rule came about. I now think you more likely ignored it. I suspect your mind simply filtered it out because it did not fit in to your Marxist labour oppression filter.
So I replied.
It was a short reply. I did not want to repeat everything. So I simply pointed out that the slaves were contributing to the prosperity of the country. That was the argument the South gave for wanting to count them.
Then you replied.
There were no arguments. It was just accusations and of unscrupulous behavior by long dead southerners. No new additions of facts. No admission that you were wrong about the electoral college which started the whole chain of messages.
So I tried one more time.
But my explanation for the original reasons for the Electoral College (illiteracy and lack of communications) still stands because it was not refuted. That was what started out the whole chain of messages. The rest was getting you to understand how the 3/5 rule came about. I hope you finally understand that.