Why can't liberals comprehend this is the United States of America??

Care4all so basically you are completely ignoring the very clear header that notes that it is purely that one guys opinion. Gotcha...
what's your point?

Any one writing about it after the fact that was not there is giving what you call, 'their opinion' on it...?

That doesn't mean that it is not an informed opinion taken from reading the papers and notes from the group of 11 that created the college of electors....

Do you have a countering opinion from someone that made it in to the Federal Election Commission's history archives? I'd be happy to read it, if you do!
 
Again the United States

United we stand divided we fall.

That's why the EC is so good.

Non sequitur. The EC is dividing us. So that's why it's not.


How?

"How"? Really?

Where do the concepts of "red states" and "blue states" come from?
And why do candidates obsess on "battleground states" while ignoring the "red" or "blue" ones they have in the bag?

How do we get wags on this message board calling for California (or in a previous episode, Texas) to secede and just GTFO, specifically on account of their "blueness" or "redness"?

Whence cometh those artificial dividing terms? Would any of them have any reason to exist at all --- if not for the EC?

That's how.

I guess we travel and you don't.

What is it --- every ninth post is in English? I'm trying to guess the pattern.
 
I wouldn't say it is a liberal thing, after all there were more prominent conservatives in Texas spouting such silliness over the past 8 years. I even think their governor talked about the notion.
 
FYI!

Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton so strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." (Madison to Hay, 1823)
 
^^^ is a far more valid discussion point

what's your point?

Any one writing about it after the fact that was not there is giving what you call, 'their opinion' on it...?

That doesn't mean that it is not an informed opinion taken from reading the papers and notes from the group of 11 that created the college of electors....

Do you have a countering opinion from someone that made it in to the Federal Election Commission's history archives? I'd be happy to read it, if you do!

You are claiming that "i;m advocating each State change the rules back to where they represent our founder's intent." and using a modern interpretation piece to support this one guys idea of the "founders intent" - that is my point. If you want to look at the founders intent then you need to look at the federalist papers and stuff like that not modern opinions (especially with liberals trying to rewrite history everywhere.)

For the record I actually agree with getting rid of winner take all.
 
FYI!

Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton so strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." (Madison to Hay, 1823)

I think you should read the whole letter...

Full Text: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823 (your final point)

Montpellier Aug. 23. 1823

Dr. Sir

I have recd your letter of the 11th. with the Newspapers containing your remarks on the present mode of electing a President, and your proposed remedy for its defects. I am glad to find you have not abandoned your attention to great Constitutional topics.

The difficulty of finding an unexceptionable process for appointing the Executive Organ of a Govt. such as that of the U.S. was deeply felt by the Convention; and as the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session, it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue & impatience in all such bodies; tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.

The part of the arrangement which casts the eventual appointment on the H. of Rs. voting by States, was, as you presume, an accomodation to the anxiety of the smaller States for their sovereign equality, and to the jealousy of the larger States towards the cumulative functions of the Senate. The Agency of the H. of Reps. was thought safer also than that of the Senate, on account of the greater number of its members. It might indeed happen that the event would turn on one or two States having one or two Reps. only; but even in that case, the Representations of most of the States being numerous, the House would present greater obstacles to corruption, than the Senate with its paucity of Members. It may be observed also, that altho’ for a certain period the evil of State votes given by one or two individuals would be extended by the introduction of new States, it would be rapidly diminished by growing populations within extensive territories. At the present period, the evil is at its maximum. Another Census will leave none the States existing or in embryo, in the numerical rank of R. Island & Delaware: Nor is it impossible that the progressive assimilation of local Institutions, laws, & manners, may overcome the prejudices of those particular States agst. an incorporation with their neighbours.

But with all possible abatements, the present rule of voting for President by the House of Reps. is so great a departure from the republican principle of numerical, equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on that point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends.

I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed & adopted; and was exchanged for the general ticket & the Legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example. A constitutional establishment of that mode will doubtless aid in reconciling the smaller States to the other change which they will regard as a concession on their part. And it may not be without a value in another important respect. The States when voting for President by general tickets or by their Legislatures, are a string of beeds: When they make their elections by districts, some of these differing in sentiment from others, and sympathizing with that of districts in other States, they are so knit together as to break the force of those Geographical & other noxious parties which might render the repulsive too strong for the cohesive tendencies within the political System.

It may be worthy of consideration whether in requiring elections by districts, a discretion might not be conveniently left with the States to allot two members to a single district. It would manifestly be an important proviso, that no new arrangement of districts should be made within a certain period previous to an ensuing election of President

Of the different remedies you propose for the failure of a majority of Electoral votes for any one Candidate, I like best that which refers the final choice to a joint vote of the two Houses of Congress, restricted to the two highest names on the Electoral lists. It might be a question, whether the three instead of the two highest names, might not be put within the choice of Congress; inasmuch as it not unfrequently happens, that the Candidate third on the list of votes, would in a question with either of two first, outvote him, & consequently be the real preference of the Voters. But this advantage of opening a wider door and a better chance to merit, may be outweighed by an increased difficulty in obtaining a prompt & quiet decision by Congress, with three Candidates before them, supported by three parties, no one of them making a majority of the whole.

The mode which you seem to approve of making a plurality of Electoral votes a definitive appointment, would have the merit of avoiding the Legislative Agency in appointing the Executive. But might it not by multiplying hopes & chances, stimulate intrigue & exertion, as well as incur too great a risk of success to a very inferior candidate? Next to the propriety of having a President the real choice of a majority of his Constituents, it is desirable that he should inspire respect & acquiescence by qualifications not suffering too much by comparison.

I cannot but think also that there is a strong objection to undistinguishing votes for President & Vice President; the highest number appointing the former, the next, the latter. To say nothing of the different services (except in a rare contingency) which are to be performed by them, occasional transpositions would take place violating equally the mutual consciousness of the individuals, & the public estimate of their comparative fitnesses.

Having thus made the remarks to which your communication led with a frankness which I am sure you will not disapprove, whatever errours you may find in them, I will sketch, for your consideration, a substitute which has occurred to myself for the faulty part of the Constitution in question.

’The Electors to be chosen by Districts, not more than two by any one district; and the arrangement of the districts not to be alterable within the period of previous to the election of President. Each Elector to give two votes; one naming his first choice, the other his next choice. If there be a majority of all the votes on the first list for the same person, he, of course to be President; if not, & there be a majority (which may well happen) on the other list for the same person, he then to be the final choice: if there be no such majority on either list, then a choice to be made by joint ballot of the two Houses of Congress, from the two names having the greatest number of votes on the two lists taken together’. Such a process would avoid the inconveniency of a second resort to the Electors; and furnish a double chance of avoiding an eventual resort to Congress. The same process might be observed in electing the Vice President.

Your letter found me under some engagements which have retarded a compliance with its request, and may have also rendered my view of the subject presented in it, more superficial than I have been aware. This consideration alone would justify my wish not to be brought into the public discussion. But there is another in the propensity of the moment, to view every thing, however abstract from the Presidential election in prospect, thro’ a medium connecting it with that question; a propensity the less to be excused as no previous change of the Constitution can be contemplated; and the more to be regretted as opinions & commitments formed under its influence may become settled obstacles at a practicable season. Be pleased to accept the expression of my esteem & my friendly respects
 
You're an idiot or you just like playing one on message boards. I keep responding to your ridiculous point that your vote somehow didn't count because you lost when you voted according to the rules of your State. You say all this and never responded to the point we were discussing.

Funny how when we're following the rules set up by the founders we aren't following what they wanted. Can you back that up with more than your own claims of what they wanted?

They clearly in everything I've read left it up to the States how to allocate electors. Show what you're basing it on that they actually wanted to dictate to States how to do it
i;m advocating each State change the rules back to where they represent our founder's intent.

1) OK, assuming that means you're dropping the stupid shit that your vote didn't count when you voted according to the rules of your State then we're good on that point

2) I asked you how you know that was their intent since we are following their rules and everything I've read just says they wanted the States to decide how to allocate their electors
I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up
here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History
The Electoral College
flagline.gif

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

  • was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  • contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  • believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  • felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

  • Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  • The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  • Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  • Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  • In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
  • The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  • The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  • In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: :lmao: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...
 
Last edited:
1) OK, assuming that means you're dropping the stupid shit that your vote didn't count when you voted according to the rules of your State then we're good on that point

2) I asked you how you know that was their intent since we are following their rules and everything I've read just says they wanted the States to decide how to allocate their electors
I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up
here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History
The Electoral College
flagline.gif

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

  • was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  • contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  • believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  • felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

  • Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  • The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  • Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  • Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  • In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
  • The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  • The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  • In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

Stop the racist crap you know you're out of your league in my topic.. I don't even have to read it to know what you are thinking
have you and your firewater bottle decided to become 'kissing cousins' tonight?

As empty as your response was posting a long link with no quote that didn't support the crap you made up, I'm not sure how bear got racist out of that one.

Here's a question you've whiffed on completely. Show where the founders expected States to allocate their own votes. Note in blue what you didn't read on the subject and is exactly what I said in your link while what you claimed isn't in your link anywhere
 
I read it when searching HISTORY of presidential race electors, and Hamilton and Madison among a few others who created the system and why they created it, verses letting actual house and Senate members voting.

Still no links? Of course, that's what happens when you make your shit up. The founding fathers left it up to the States how to allocate their electors. You're still zero for everything. Link, wench. Where did the FFs say States were supposed to allocate proportionately. Your claim, back it up
here ya go with just one link....it's a long read, much more at the link...I doubt you'll read it all or even try to understand it...

The Electoral College - Origin and History
The Electoral College
flagline.gif

Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

  • was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
  • contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
  • believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  • felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?


Origins of the Electoral College
The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


The First Design
In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):

  • Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
  • The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
  • Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
  • Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
  • In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
  • The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
  • The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
  • In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
In all, this was quite an elaborate design. But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to work without political parties and without national campaigns

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.


The Second Design
The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic-Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor - but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time. Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804.

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office. All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than that of the Electors.

Stop the racist crap you know you're out of your league in my topic.. I don't even have to read it to know what you are thinking
have you and your firewater bottle decided to become 'kissing cousins' tonight?

As empty as your response was posting a long link with no quote that didn't support the crap you made up, I'm not sure how bear got racist out of that one.

Here's a question you've whiffed on completely. Show where the founders expected States to allocate their own votes. Note in blue what you didn't read on the subject and is exactly what I said in your link while what you claimed isn't in your link anywhere

I know the real history and the liberal spin on it

They are good but not as good as me
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz
Are you seriously saying that liberals don't actually know what America has states?

Seriously?


Well look at all these threads bitching about the EC? Of course they don't know

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.


without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?
 
FYI!

Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, Federalist 68). Hamilton so strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, Draft of a Constitutional Amendment). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." (Madison to Hay, 1823)


if you don't like the current EC system, pass a constitutional amendment to change it. Get it through both houses of congress and then get it ratified by 38 states.

Unless you are prepared to do that, this entire discussion has the value of a pile of coffee grounds at the bottom of a trash can.
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.
Who says to eliminate the Senate?
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

There is no rational argument for making all states equal in power.
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.


1 vote per state gives Trump a landslide victory. One vote per person gives Trump a small victory, the EC gives Trump a victory. What exactly is your issue?

Hillary lost, why cant you deal with that?
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

There is no rational argument for making all states equal in power.


they are in the senate. 2 senators per state. sounds equal to me.
 
Are you seriously saying that liberals don't actually know that America has states?

Seriously?

The point is, liberals think Californy and Carolina should all have the same laws and rules. States are losing their autonomy and you can blame the 17 th amendment IMO.
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

There is no rational argument for making all states equal in power.


they are in the senate. 2 senators per state. sounds equal to me.

I said a 'rational argument'.
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

If it's 50 states, then give each state 1 vote. If it's a country of Americans, then give every person a vote that is the same.

But no, this is the USA. The country that goes around the world telling countries like China, Russia, Venezuela etc that they should be DEMOCRATIC, and can't figure out that there's no democracy to be seen in the presidential election.


1 vote per state gives Trump a landslide victory. One vote per person gives Trump a small victory, the EC gives Trump a victory. What exactly is your issue?

Hillary lost, why cant you deal with that?

Trump lost the popular vote, dumbass. Where have you been?
 
We are a nation of 50 states bigger than Europe


Is Spain the same as Italy ?

Is Great Britain the same as Germany?


Hence the name United States of America

Not the United State of California



What's next does the liberals want to get rid of the Senate that's supposed to protect each state evenly?



The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, afederal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions.[fn 1]Forty-eight of the fifty states and the federal district are contiguous and located in North America betweenCanada and Mexico.

The charm of states rights ended in 1861, or thereabouts.

The biggest blow to states rights occurred in 1913. Its documented and proven.
 

Forum List

Back
Top