The real reason we have an electoral college instead of using the popular vote

[NYcarbineer]

Argument by ridicule is the standard practice of the weak minded.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

Again for the millionth time ..

There would have been no United States today with out the EC.






What's so hard to comprehend?


And Quit trolling NY it is getting boring



.



.

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, Trump won with around 25% of registered voters. Clinton claimed half his supporters were deplorables. So we're really only talking about 12%. Not a quarter.

Nice spin. Obviously correct, but spin nonetheless. Why did you use "registered voters" over "voters"? The obvious; so you could reduce the total percentage. Trump had 46.2% of the vote, 62,955,000+ Americans. Hillary called half of them, 23.1%, over 31,477,000 Americans, "a basket of deplorables". So much for someone who wanted to be everyone's President, eh?

 

[Fueri]

actually, I think the reason we do it is to make liberals cry.

 

[Divine Wind]

lol Why do Democrats have to accuse everyone else of being racists?

For the same reason why liars always think they are being lied to and cheaters always think their spouse is cheating on them.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

Moronic leftards falling back onto their racist bullshit thinking that will somehow make them relevant again.

I knew sooner or later some RWnut would go the denialist route of claiming our founding was oblivious to race considerations.

Jeezus, dood! You're the one that is oblivious. You've been slapped in the face with facts but stiil insist on one article in a leftst magazine you believe confirms your misguided ideas

Remember, "A fool will never change his mind. A wise man will change his mind when being presented with the facts".

Which one are you?

 

[paperview]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

I'm sure that is the way the story is told in public schools but it's wrong. The smaller states didn't want to be ruled by larger more populated states. The founders knew this and they knew the smaller states which were mostly located in the south would not vote to ratify if they didn't do something to get them on board. So they came up with a brilliant idea...the electoral college. Not sure where you got the slavery stuff but it's wrong. Slavery and indentured servitude was widely practiced in the days of the signing of the constitution. Slavery had nothing to do with the electoral college.

Virginia was the biggest beneficiary of the electoral college system. It was also the biggest state.

I don't think they can grasp their head around this.

Virginia, as you say, was the largest state, with a total population of 747,550 - of which 39% were slaves - North Carolina (395,005) was third - of which 26% were slaves.

Again, for those who missed it:

 

[Lakhota]

The founders were using candles, oil lamps, quill pens, and single-shot muskets when they wrote the Constitution. Have we not progressed since then?

 

[esthermoon]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

In this article the reporter says the main reason there's an electoral college in the USA lies in the federal system. He says smaller states have more political power thanks to the electoral college system.
He says nothing about race

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Actually, Trump won with around 25% of registered voters. Clinton claimed half his supporters were deplorables. So we're really only talking about 12%. Not a quarter.

Nice spin. Obviously correct, but spin nonetheless. Why did you use "registered voters" over "voters"? The obvious; so you could reduce the total percentage. Trump had 46.2% of the vote, 62,955,000+ Americans. Hillary called half of them, 23.1%, over 31,477,000 Americans, "a basket of deplorables". So much for someone who wanted to be everyone's President, eh?

Voters are registered voters. If you're looking for percentages, how else could you do it?

 

[Divine Wind]

The founders were using candles, oil lamps, quill pens, and single-shot muskets when they wrote the Constitution. Have we not progressed since then?

Don't forget the horse and buggies. So what's your point? Shred the Constitution and start over?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The founders were using candles, oil lamps, quill pens, and single-shot muskets when they wrote the Constitution. Have we not progressed since then?

They also didn't have Television, radio and the internet..


So what's your damn point?



.

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually, Trump won with around 25% of registered voters. Clinton claimed half his supporters were deplorables. So we're really only talking about 12%. Not a quarter.

Nice spin. Obviously correct, but spin nonetheless. Why did you use "registered voters" over "voters"? The obvious; so you could reduce the total percentage. Trump had 46.2% of the vote, 62,955,000+ Americans. Hillary called half of them, 23.1%, over 31,477,000 Americans, "a basket of deplorables". So much for someone who wanted to be everyone's President, eh?

Voters are registered voters. If you're looking for percentages, how else could you do it?

Not all registered voters voted.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The founders were using candles, oil lamps, quill pens, and single-shot muskets when they wrote the Constitution. Have we not progressed since then?

Don't forget the horse and buggies. So what's your point? Shred the Constitution and start over?

Beat me to it..


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Actually, Trump won with around 25% of registered voters. Clinton claimed half his supporters were deplorables. So we're really only talking about 12%. Not a quarter.

Nice spin. Obviously correct, but spin nonetheless. Why did you use "registered voters" over "voters"? The obvious; so you could reduce the total percentage. Trump had 46.2% of the vote, 62,955,000+ Americans. Hillary called half of them, 23.1%, over 31,477,000 Americans, "a basket of deplorables". So much for someone who wanted to be everyone's President, eh?

The original claim was half of America. I simply corrected that.

Trump's 46.2% of the vote still only came from 25% of registered voters. You're simply trying to make it appear larger. It's still just 12.5% of registered voters.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Actually, Trump won with around 25% of registered voters. Clinton claimed half his supporters were deplorables. So we're really only talking about 12%. Not a quarter.

Nice spin. Obviously correct, but spin nonetheless. Why did you use "registered voters" over "voters"? The obvious; so you could reduce the total percentage. Trump had 46.2% of the vote, 62,955,000+ Americans. Hillary called half of them, 23.1%, over 31,477,000 Americans, "a basket of deplorables". So much for someone who wanted to be everyone's President, eh?

Voters are registered voters. If you're looking for percentages, how else could you do it?

Not all registered voters voted.

No shit.
That's why I pointed out that Trump won with only 25% of registered voters.

 

[Divine Wind]

The original claim was half of America. I simply corrected that.

The original claim by whom? Cite the post you are correcting, please.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's why I pointed out that Trump won with only 25% of registered voters.

Nice spin. So now we know why Hillary lost. Only 25% of registered voters voted for her. See how that works?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The original claim was half of America. I simply corrected that.

The original claim by whom? Cite the post you are correcting, please.

The one I responded to. Obviously.

It was you and you said a quarter of voting Americans. Simply pointed out that it's actually half of that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. Not because of some visionary genius by the Founders. Not some remedy for small states vs. large states, or rural vs. urban.

Like just about everything else in the history of America, it was connected to race, and slavery.

To put it simply -

Slaves couldn't vote, but they were counted at 3/5ths apiece to determine congressional representation.

The Southern states were thus at a disadvantage if the popular vote were to determine the winner,

but they got a big boost by the use of electors representing the size of their congressional delegations, since the counting of the slaves increased the number of house representatives those states were entitled to.

The Southern slave states got their way and that's where the electoral college comes from.

No it's because the founders knew people like you would be voting and they said Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and they wanted smaller states to have a little more power......it worked well and is awesome!!!!!

You're wrong.

The state that gained the most from the implementation of the electoral system was VIRGINIA.

Virginia was the most populous of the original thirteen states. And had the most slaves.

Virginia's slave population in 1790 was 292,000. At 3/5ths, that was worth 175,000 towards calculating Virginia's house members, and thus calculating Virginia's power in the electoral college.

You can compare that to Maine, with 96,000 people, no slaves. No bonus electors.