Let's get rid of the Electoral College

I have never thumbed anybody down for disagreeing with me. Only the ones persistently in my face over it.

I thumb up, with glee about wit or a bunch of work or simple back up agreement. Some postings take time. I remember when it took me a whale of time to post batches of photos, sources from varied sites or once in a while my own photos, and that is just my experience - a lot of people have taken time here, whether or not I agree with them. Some of that was that I tried to bring wildlife photos, and I appreciate others doing it.

I not that long ago said I didn't post down (well, in memory, very unusually, over about eight years since thumbs started, but now I do once in a while, to give the english learner a clue.)

We're guessing the meaning of the "gob" you frequently used here.

Would you be so kind as to give us a definition or an explanation about the word gob?

short for georgeob

George O'Brien?

the poster georgeob. He and McGentrix espouse similar extreme rightwing conservative views, which have been much in evidence on threads I frequent, and I was confusing him and McG, who has been the one more present on this thread. They're pretty much interchangeable.

THANK YOU! That could be one of the best compliments I have ever received.

No, I have to agree. I'm 75% liberal and I pay attention to you and George ob as worthy clients of your side.
Pretty much you lead with fact and keep the silly insults at bay. You trade insults but that's to be expected.

Now Dot get a swelled head McG

Id include oralloy in your select club , with the exception that he totally leaves the planet when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Other than that, he tries to argue from facts .

The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

voting meant citizenship, which relied upon property ownership, whiteness of skin , and masculinity

Is that supposed to be a revelation?

only in the sense that the constitutional originalists who state that the constitution is not to be considered a living document seem to deny the fact that over half of our citizens, when the us constitution was ratified, were not even considered citizens. That , to me, is a revelation to us that "originalism" is total mouthwash.

I don't know why people constantly troty out that old bullsh*t about the EC and slavery. In The Federalist, #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:



People don't seem to understand that the election goes to the candidate who gets the majority of electoral votes, not simply the candidate who gets the most electoral votes. Washington, of course, was twice elected in what were basically uncontested elections. Immediately thereafter, however, in 1796 and 1800, the elections were thrown into the House, which is what the farmers anticipated happing in most elections. When an election is referred to the House, the vote is by states, without reference to the size of the congressional delegation. Among the original colonies, there were six slave states, and seven so-called "free" states. When Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee had entered by the summer of 1796, the tally was eight and eight. Even as late as 1824, there were four candidates for the presidency, and they were all members of the Democratic-Republican Party. There had originally been eleven candidates, but five dropped out along the way, and two more dropped out shortly before the elections. There were six candidates for Vice President, all from the Democratic-Republican Party. The framers anticipated that in almost all elections, the results would throw the election into the House, and there, voting by states, majoritarian tyranny was blocked. It had nothing to do with slavery. The framers did not anticipate Andrew Jackson, and the creation of the first modern political party, however. In fact, they didn't have political parties in mind at all--there weren't any at the time of the constitutional convention.

There was nothing about the electoral college which worked to the advantage of slave states. This is an increasingly popular historical myth which I suspect has gained currency because like all political lies, it has been spread by those with an agenda, and has been repeated often enough that people have come to believe it. The one's with the agenda are those opposed to the EC.

That article is peddling horsie poop. The EC was created by a committee of eleven members, most of whom were not from slave states. The author of that article has singled out Madison as the villain of the piece, and ignores that the EC was created by a committee. Every serious issue at the constitutional convention was referred to a select committee.

I don't see how this is true. In a direct election, wouldn't the slaves have had no stake in the election. In the indirect elections that happened, slaves did have a stake in the election despite not being able to vote, which worked to the advantage of slave states? I can't speak about the intentions of the founding fathers, but the electoral college did benefit slave states.

As I have said on the forums a number of times, many articles I post from seem to need commenting on, so I post them and wait to see what others have to say about it. The correct information often comes out.

Eleven and a half, if you count Madison.

How did the EC benefit slave states? The effect of the EC was to create modern, organized and disciplined political parties. From 1800 to 1828, a single political party effectively existed in the United States. When Jackson lost the 1824 election to J. Q. Adams, he went home and organized the Democratic Party. We do know that a great many of the founders were opposed to "faction," as they called it, and by which they meant political parties. At least, that's what they meant in their vocabulary. They really didn't see Jackson's Democratic Party coming, but once it had arrived, all politicians saw the power of a well-organized, disciplined party, and all parties quickly emulated Jackson's organization. In fact, Henry Clay, from a slave state, as Speaker of the House in 1825, threw his support to Adams rather than Jackson, saying in a personal letter "I cannot believe that killing 2,500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult, and complicated duties of the Chief Magistracy." In fact, Adams position on the tariff and "internal improvements" (what we would call infrastructure) was more in line with Clay's position, so spite left aside, he was working for the candidate whose program was closest to his own thinking. In the only election which actually was about slavery, in 1860, Lincoln won in the EC while getting less than 40% of the popular vote. Lincoln won the 1860 election in 1858, by forcing Douglas to repudiate slavery, and therefore alienating the slave states, and splitting the Democratic Party.

Contemporary Americans have race on the brain in a way that out ancestors did not. In the one election which actually was about slavery, the EC assured Lincoln's election.

Look at an electoral map of this election, especially one which shows the results by county. The so-called "fly-over" areas of the country voted for Trump. The only states without a sea coast that Mrs. Clinton won were Illinois and Vermont.

The EC doesn't do what it seems the framers intended. But is does have the stated effect touted by the framers of a bulwark against majority tyranny. It is also worth noting that it has been the decision of the several states to award EC votes on a winner-take-all basis--that is not mandated by the constituion.

welcome back