11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Pilot1]

We are different from all other countries FOR A REASON. It is why millions want to come here every year. We aren't freaking socialist Canada!

 

[Pogo]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

No. There is nothing in his comment to suggest such a thing.

Of course there is. It's sitting right there in the nest -- "we might as well abolish states... they will be essentially meaningless". That has to mean the only purpose of having a 'state' is to fuel the Electoral College. He didn't just "suggest" it --- he came right out and declared it.

 

[tycho1572]

Democrats have always cared more about having power than doing anything positive for their voters.
People are finally waking up to that fact and voting republican.

Hate to tell you something you should have figured out eons ago but "amassing power" is the only real goal of any entrenched political party. And here we sit with two of them dominating everything.

We currently have republicans fighting to give power back to the voters while democrats fight to maintain their status quo.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Actually, I believe the USSC has ruled that electors can be made to pledge their votes by state law, Ray v Blair. The question is whether they can be punished if they vote against such a pledge.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
The Voter's Self Defense System

This pact may not be a good idea, but it seems likely to be Constitutional, unless that Article 1 Section 10 clause counts. I wonder if that section counts between US states, or if it is meant more for states interacting with other nations. A later clause in Section 10 allows states to enter into compacts with the consent of Congress: that might be the requirement in this case.

Give me a moment to review these links.

EDIT:
The phraseology around this paragraph is quite arcane, so I need more time to examine it.

The mandamus was approved on the sole ground that the above requirement restricted the freedom of a federal elector to vote in his Electoral College for his choice for President. 257 Ala. ___, 57 So.2d 395. The pledge was held void as unconstitutional under the Twelfth Amendment 1 Because the mandamus was based on this federal right specially claimed by respondent, we granted certiorari. 28 U.S.C. 1257 (3); 343 U.S. 901 .

]

Secondly, we consider the argument that the Twelfth Amendment demands absolute freedom for the elector to vote his own choice, uninhibited by a pledge. It is true that the Amendment says the electors shall vote by ballot. But it is also true that the Amendment does not prohibit an elector's announcing his choice beforehand, pledging himself. The suggestion that in the early elections candidates for electors - contemporaries of the Founders - would have hesitated, because of constitutional limitations, to pledge themselves to support party nominees in the event of their selection as electors is impossible to accept.

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, 1, to vote as he may choose in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional.

What I conclude from this reading is that the Elector is not bound by his pledge. The elector can vote contrary to his pledge and nothing could be done about it.

So what happens when an Elector refuses to uphold the interstate pact? Nothing...nothing can be done about it.

This is a disastrous compact between these 11 States...I can swear to you the the moment the national popular vote goes to a Republican that several Electors are going to violate their promise to uphold this pact. This is a recipe for Civil War that can be easily averted by simply not engaging in this insane pact to begin with.

Dems need to amend the Constitution, with consent of 3/4 of the legislators of the Several States. This is obscene.

 

[Pogo]

l

I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?

The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?

If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?

I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?

Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.

If you're trying to say that states can cast their electoral votes however they wish, they can to a certain extent. They are certainly not required to follow any other states' lead. Should they follow the big states they would also have to face their own citizens' reaction to having their votes nullified.

Once AGAIN states are ALREADY nullifying their citizens' votes, and have been doing so for two hundred years. Whether State X "follows the lead" of States A, B, C, D etc, or whether it "follows the lead" of its own election's plurality, EITHER ONE nullifies its own citizens' votes as soon as that state's Electors go to Congress and claims a unanimous selection, i.e. as soon as WTA kicks in.

This has been going on for two centuries dood.

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

 

[tycho1572]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

It’s all good, pogo. We know there’s a reason for your ignorance. It’s not totally your fault.

 

[westwall]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

 

[Pogo]

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

It’s all good, pogo. We know there’s a reason for your ignorance. It’s not totally your fault.

Actually he just posted some inane blog the ideas of which I already refuted about 300 posts ago with quotes from Madison, so he's got homework to do. So yeah tell me about the "ignorance" of refuting a post a week before it shows up.

 

[boedicca]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

No. There is nothing in his comment to suggest such a thing.

Of course there is. It's sitting right there in the nest -- "we might as well abolish states... they will be essentially meaningless". That has to mean the only purpose of having a 'state' is to fuel the Electoral College. He didn't just "suggest" it --- he came right out and declared it.

*sigh*

Sarcasm is so wasted on Some People.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.

Does that mean the only purpose of having states is to elect the president?

What you should ask is: What is the purpose of the Federal Government? Not, "What is the purpose of the States." The purpose of the Federal Government is found in Article I+ II, Article III and Article IV:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article III (Judiciary) clearly states that the federal Courts are to settle disputes between states.

Article I+II allow the federal government to use military force to suppress insurrections, rebellions and to enforce express provisions of the US Constitution (for instance the feds could use military force against Long Island if it tried to secede from New York without Albany's consent due to the express constitutional provision that no segment of a State may secede and erect its own boundaries within a State defined and protected by the Federal Constitution).

The Congress is the body that decides whether or not to use military force against enemies (foreign or domestic) and the President is the one who decides to use such forces (Command in Chief), thus the States that assented to the Constitution did some to gain these protections from the Federal Government; however, assuming only that they have an equal voice in how the Federal Government proceeds:

The small States asked for a Senate.
The large States asked for House of Reps.
The Founders compromised and gave us both, checking popular and state powers.
Future states, small and large, applied to join the Union, since each had an equal voice in legislative power and choice of the executive (President). States with tiny populations get 3 Electoral votes...giving them more of a voice then they would have under a popular system, but no where near enough of a voice to upset the balance of the more populous States.

------------------------------
Democrats are willing to turn a blind eye to how the Constitution came to be with its series of compromises between large and small states, and separately, Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The same arguments and reasons for these compromises between the small and large states remain valid today: Smaller states (by population, but equal or larger landmass) will not tolerate their voice being nullified by larger states (by population with same or lesser landmass).

It's these compromises that created the Constitution as we know it and made both small and large states (by population) comfortable with joining the Union. Undoing these compromises without the consent of the smaller states (with amending the Constitution with the consent of 3/4 of the States) in order to benefit the more popular states (cities to be honest) will only lead to mass secession and civil war.

 

[Pogo]

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

Oh please. "Learn" this--- Number one, nowhere did I say slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the EC; in fact directly above I went into detail about other reasons, so your typically dishonest attempt to morph my points into something else does not go unnoticed as you apparently had in mind; and Number Two the role of Slavery in it was already covered several days ago in this same thread, citing Madison's observations thereof, recorded if memory serves July 19th.

 

[hadit]

Democrats have always cared more about having power than doing anything positive for their voters.
People are finally waking up to that fact and voting republican.

The crisis will occur when CA is forced to give all their electoral votes to a Republican. The freak outs will be intense.

 

[westwall]

The Electoral College exists to defend We the People. Or have you forgotten that fact? Otherwise California rules the nation. Do you think that that is a good idea? The Founders didn't.

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

Oh please. "Learn" this--- Number one, nowhere did I say slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the EC; in fact directly above I went into detail about other reasons, so your typically dishonest attempt to morph my points into something else does not go unnoticed as you apparently had in mind; and Number Two the role of Slavery in it was already covered several days ago in this same thread, citing Madison's observations thereof, recorded if memory serves July 19th.

Bull crap. You claimed it was the primary reason for the electoral college. You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and yet, the next time this conversation pops up you'll once again trot out your lies.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

Oh please. "Learn" this--- Number one, nowhere did I say slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the EC; in fact directly above I went into detail about other reasons, so your typically dishonest attempt to morph my points into something else does not go unnoticed as you apparently had in mind; and Number Two the role of Slavery in it was already covered several days ago in this same thread, citing Madison's observations thereof, recorded if memory serves July 19th.

Bull crap. You claimed it was the primary reason for the electoral college. You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and yet, the next time this conversation pops up you'll once again trot out your lies.

Let's all agree that the 3/5 compromise was because of slavery, which effected the EC.

 

[Pogo]

Mostly it exists to defend They the Slaveowners. That, and the fact that a PV would have been impractical in the 18th Century, in part because who had the franchise varied widely from state to state -- not just slaves but property owners. And women. So having it done by states equalized that aspect.

Since those daze we've done away with slavery, and with it the idea that a state could count that part of its population at a 60% rate, done away with requiring property rights to vote, and all 57 states allow women to vote.

In other words every reason the Electrical College once had to exist has been switched off. There is no point in further resistance.

Canada doesn't engage any similar proxy system to "protect its provinces". Nor does the UK, France, Germany, etc etc. In fact the only country in the world that holds a popular vote and then filters it through an indirect system to get it executed, besides us ----------- is Pakistan. And I don't know why they do it but I doubt it's to "prevent Karachi and Islamabad from running the joint".

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

Oh please. "Learn" this--- Number one, nowhere did I say slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the EC; in fact directly above I went into detail about other reasons, so your typically dishonest attempt to morph my points into something else does not go unnoticed as you apparently had in mind; and Number Two the role of Slavery in it was already covered several days ago in this same thread, citing Madison's observations thereof, recorded if memory serves July 19th.

Bull crap. You claimed it was the primary reason for the electoral college. You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and yet, the next time this conversation pops up you'll once again trot out your lies.

Hey Twinkletoes, I've got James Madison, you've got some blogger you googled that I never heard of.

So yeah tell me about "lies", Dishrag.

 

[Pogo]

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

Oh please. "Learn" this--- Number one, nowhere did I say slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the EC; in fact directly above I went into detail about other reasons, so your typically dishonest attempt to morph my points into something else does not go unnoticed as you apparently had in mind; and Number Two the role of Slavery in it was already covered several days ago in this same thread, citing Madison's observations thereof, recorded if memory serves July 19th.

Bull crap. You claimed it was the primary reason for the electoral college. You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and yet, the next time this conversation pops up you'll once again trot out your lies.

Let's all agree that the 3/5 compromise was because of slavery, which effected the EC.

--- And had a helluva lot to do with the fact that the majority of our pre-Civil War POTUSes including 36 of the first 40 years of Administrations and including literally every POTUS who got re-elected, were all slaveholders from the South. Four of the first five POTUSes being from not only the South but specifically from Virginia, at the time the largest Electoral pool.

 

[westwall]

Which is an outright lie, as has been proven to you at least twice that I can remember. But still you trot out the propaganda.

Then go ahead and prove it wrong, if you can. Because simply posting "that's a lie" on a message board doesn't get that done.

Read, and learn....

First, critics sometimes cite the 3/5ths compromise, which was brokered by delegates at the Constitutional Convention. That compromise had to do with the way that the population would be counted for purposes of determining congressional representation. The South wanted to count slaves as a whole person. The North did not want to include slaves in this tally AT ALL—a larger population would give the South more voting power! In the end, the delegates to the Convention agreed to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person. But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North? After all, if slaves had been counted as a whole person (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even MORE representatives in Congress. The 3/5ths compromise is often cited as something that was somehow pro-South/pro-slavery. But it can also be interpreted as a nod to non-slave owners in the North.

Something else you should know about the 3/5ths compromise: The delegates were discussing congressional representation, NOT the Electoral College. In fact, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason that the compromise is cited today is because, late in the Convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.


Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process were not focused on slavery—at all. The delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was better. All the small states (not only slave states) were worried about the concept of a national popular vote. They feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again. Keep in mind that the large states weren’t uniformly slave or not slave either. Virginia, one of the largest states, was a slave state, whereas Pennsylvania was not.

Was the Electoral College created only because of slavery? | Tara Ross

Oh please. "Learn" this--- Number one, nowhere did I say slavery was the "ONLY" reason for the EC; in fact directly above I went into detail about other reasons, so your typically dishonest attempt to morph my points into something else does not go unnoticed as you apparently had in mind; and Number Two the role of Slavery in it was already covered several days ago in this same thread, citing Madison's observations thereof, recorded if memory serves July 19th.

Bull crap. You claimed it was the primary reason for the electoral college. You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and yet, the next time this conversation pops up you'll once again trot out your lies.

Hey Twinkletoes, I've got James Madison, you've got some blogger you googled that I never heard of.

So yeah tell me about "lies", Dishrag.

Typical progressive liar. Here is what Madison actually said, not the BS out of context lies you people resort too..

"You wouldn’t know this to listen to Electoral College critics. Instead, they often cite one statement made by James Madison. Taken out of context, it certainly sounds damning. “The right of suffrage,” he told the convention in July 1787, “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.” Electoral College opponents usually note that he mentioned electors in his very next sentence.

There are multiple problems here. First, Madison wasn’t the first to suggest the use of electors that day. A delegate from Massachusetts, Rufus King, had already mentioned them earlier. King’s state was not a slave state, nor was King himself in favor of slavery. (He worked against it during his lifetime.) Second, the discussion that day wasn’t about slavery. Madison’s statement was a tangent to the main discussion, which revolved around the President’s eligibility for a second term and whether the legislature should select the President directly."

 

[Montrovant]

Without the EC states "will be essentially meaningless." That would seem to indicate the meaning or purpose of states has to do with the EC and electing the president. That or, perhaps, it is another claim that somehow the functions of government will change dependent upon the method by which presidents are elected.

The state laws will eventually be superseded by Federal laws as the large population centers will dictate the outcome of the Presidential election. Large metro areas are ALL Democrat, and liberal/progressive. Eventually, even the more conservative states will succumb to that. It will be one homogenous collective.

But to repeat, only 5 presidential elections have ever ended with a candidate in office that did not win the popular vote. While I realize that a national popular vote system would likely change the dynamics of overall voting somewhat, to this point having the popular vote winner in office has not led to "one homogenous collective."

 

[Montrovant]

l

Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.

This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.

And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.

"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?

Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.

If you're trying to say that states can cast their electoral votes however they wish, they can to a certain extent. They are certainly not required to follow any other states' lead. Should they follow the big states they would also have to face their own citizens' reaction to having their votes nullified.

I'm not arguing in favor of the compact, I'm merely arguing that it seems likely to be legal and Constitutional.

I'm not sure what the apples and oranges comment is directed at.

"States choosing their leaders"is most emphatically NOT the same as "states choosing their electors".

Ah ha! I must have missed that when I read the post, I was thinking it said electors. Thanks for the correction!

States (specifically state legislatures) are allowed to choose their electors pretty much however they like, as well.