The Purpose of the Electoral College

[Pogo]

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.

And most people didn't live in Boston, Philadelphia or New York. Which is what I just said.
Ruh roh. Math time again.

Buttsoiler's trying to float a turd-meme based on 2016 demographics and apply it to the 18th century. In his case he may actually not know the difference.

 

[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.

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.

You're proving why it's pointless to try and have a reasoned discussion with a liberal. You want to try and make this an argument over slavery and women's right to vote, putting me on the side of what we've changed and making yourself the defender of liberty for blacks and women. But that's not the conversation we were having. I am not here to defend slavery or women not having voting rights, those are just the way things were.

You wanted to argue the EC was unfair because it gave certain states more political clout on the backs of slaves but it also gave them more political power on the backs of women, children and non land owners. Whether or not it was fair, it's how it was done. I explained the reason was because the House is intended to represent the whole population of a state, not just white land owners. Now certainly, the land owners had the most influence because they were the ones who voted.

And I have never once argued that things can't be changed. I told you that it will take a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think you'll ever have one ratified because so many states would have to give up their political power. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Hardly.

So this topic has now been argued from top to bottom and it's been explained to you all kinds of ways but you just want to demagogue the thread with what I call "virtue signaling" and whine like a little SJW bitch.

 

[Pogo]

You're proving why it's pointless to try and have a reasoned discussion with a liberal.

And you're proving why hanging labels and blanket statements are fallacies.
I already knew that but thanks for the demo.

You want to try and make this an argument over slavery and women's right to vote, putting me on the side of what we've changed and making yourself the defender of liberty for blacks and women. But that's not the conversation we were having. I am not here to defend slavery or women not having voting rights, those are just the way things were.

Whelp --- too late for that; you already did defend slavery.

As for what I'm doing ---- read the thread title. That's exactly what I addressed. It is the history, like it or lump it.

You wanted to argue the EC was unfair because it gave certain states more political clout on the backs of slaves but it also gave them more political power on the backs of women, children and non land owners.

Actually we not only saw fit to finally count slaves as people but women and non-land-owners too. Your children argument is too nonsensical to address --- that's why I've been ignoring it. Hey, shouldn't my pet turtle get a vote too? Poster please. Grow up.

And I have never once argued that things can't be changed. I told you that it will take a Constitutional Amendment. I don't think you'll ever have one ratified because so many states would have to give up their political power. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Hardly.

And I told you that's not the only way to change things, nor is any of that even relevant to identifying what the issues and effects are ----- which is exactly what I'm doing while you're over there going "will never work" and "move". You know, that deep intellectual rumination you do because you can't think of a counterargument, yet also can't bear to admit somebody else got it right.

So this topic has now been argued from top to bottom and it's been explained to you all kinds of ways but you just want to demagogue the thread with what I call "virtue signaling" and whine like a little SJW bitch.

and there it is again. You can set your watch by it. Matter of fact I'm going to replace the numbers on my clock with "STFU", "you can move" and "will never work". I already get the regular chiming in here anyway...

No idea what "SJW" means but who cares. You're here to see your name on the internets, obviously not for any kind of dialogue.

 

[Boss]

Whelp --- too late for that; you already did defend slavery.

As for what I'm doing ---- read the thread title. That's exactly what I addressed. It is the history, like it or lump it.

I didn't defend slavery, that is your 'virtue signaling' which is what liberal snowflakes do when they are failing at their arguments.

Actually we not only saw fit to finally count slaves as people but women and non-land-owners too. Your children argument is too nonsensical to address --- that's why I've been ignoring it. Hey, shouldn't my pet turtle get a vote too? Poster please. Grow up.

No... we counted slaves, women and non land owners as people. They just didn't get to vote... like children under 18 today. Again, representatives are apportioned on the basis of population and not voters. Your pet turtle isn't a person.

It was counting slaves as people which caused the 3/5 compromise.

And I told you that's not the only way to change things, nor is any of that even relevant to identifying what the issues and effects are ----- which is exactly what I'm doing while you're over there going "will never work" and "move". You know, that deep intellectual rumination you do because you can't think of a counterargument, yet also can't bear to admit somebody else got it right.

Well, yes... to change Article II Sec 1 of the US Constitution, you need a Constitutional Amendment. There is no other way to change the Constitution. You can keep on claiming there is but you're wrong.

No idea what "SJW" means but who cares. You're here to see your name on the internets, obviously not for any kind of dialogue.

I don't use my name, I use a screen name like you do. I don't mind dialogue but I have little patience for stupid people who think they're smart. "SJW" means social justice warrior. Whenever you start the 'virtue signaling' you sound like one.