It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defeated Democrats Have New Excuse: Electoral College Is Racist

page: 4
52
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I still laugh when people try to blame the EC or say that Hillary won the popular vote.

You want to get real? Clinton and Trump both lost the popular vote. The majority of voting Americans DID. NOT. VOTE. If we were to go by the popular vote, we wouldn't have a president at all.




posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Wow you are an idiot.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
racists?.....now why would anyone call the right racists??...I mean just because trump said Mexicans that illegally cross the border are murderers and rapists, or that women are pigs, and should be judge on their looks, or have a registry for all American Muslim citizens, or got sued and lost a discrimination suit for housing, or didn't want black dealers on his casino tables when important people came in, so he sent them to the back room, or the only cabinet job Ben Carson is qualified for is inner city housing (HUD)....how baseless and silly of democrats to think that the white messiah is racist.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I googled these links for those interested. Getting at the truth is what we're about right? So lets find the answers.

(the EC is racist)
www.pbs.org - Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars...
(the EC isn't racist)
www.washingtonpost.com - In defense of the electoral college...

I've not yet concluded to my own satisfaction whether EC was racist in nature. Teh trouble is slaveholding was legal in those times and so it msut be concluded the founders were racist in nature.


O K ... When you get all your research done, could you then find some concrete proof that there was ever an intent for the EC to ever use race as a factor when selecting which delegates votes would be counted ? This should be the test to determine if it is racist or not.

Was the initial inspiration for creating the electoral college based on giving slaveholder states more voting power OR was it a general concern over smaller states not having enough voting power?

From my previous post (the one you replied to):

My thinking is they started out on the principle smaller states needed a larger voice. Bear in mind the constitution was in its infancy. This was all new at the time. States were very concerned with tyranny and state rights. They wanted to assign "electors" roughly representative of the population size. Afterward, slaveholding became an issue because slaves couldn't vote and were a large population in some states. Thus, the 3/5's rule came about, giving those slaveholding states a larger electoral vote.

James Madison brought up the 3/5's rule. This gave slaveholder states a larger electoral count because slaves were counted 3/5 of a person. The question is whether the 3/5 rule came about as natural consequence of creating a electoral college, or was it one small part in a grand strategy to create the electoral college at the behest of slaveholding states?

More about the 3/5 rule:
en.wikipedia.org - Three-Fifths Compromise...

From my laymen perspective, there can be lots of reasons a state would want an electoral college for the country. Just wanting to preserve your slaveholding status, is one example. That would be racist--ofc--if it were the primary reason. There could be many other laws or practices in your state vulnerable in an election if your state has small representation. What's in it for me? Why should I join this union of states if I'm just going to be bullied during elections? Better to stay out of the union if tyranny is present.

Do not minority groups ask the same things? Am I represented? Am I being oppressed? Do I have a voice? What's in it for me?

If these're not concerns then a popular vote will do. But this is tyranny of the majority for anybody who's minority.
en.wikipedia.org - Tyranny of the majority...

American founding father Alexander Hamilton writing to Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential election system, and the phenomenon of faithless electors allowed for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government...

And as we saw in this election 2016, the "majority" isn't really majority. Hillary won 65,844,610 votes, Trump got 62,979,636. That's 48% versus 46%. Also total votes only amount to 55.3% of those of voting age. So being we can't say the majority is definitively even half the nation, it underscores how large the minority population might be, given victory doesn't require 3/4 or 3/5.

The union of states occurred in 1776. All of these--I think--were British colonies uniting against Britain's oppression. The constitution was accepted in 1789. During this time ALL states would be concerned with representation. If you fought to gain freedom, what good is it to lose it again?
edit on 12/23/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Is marginalizing and ignoring the white working class white demonizing white males and white people in general with the assertion of blanket "white privilege" somehow not racist? The DNC calling anyone racist at this point is hypocrisy to the point of being laughable.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Are you kidding? It's undeniably true. A central motivation and effect of the EC in its initiation was to give more weight to slave states without them having to actually let slaves vote. It was necessary to obtain political union with what was then economically powerful southern states. Historical record is clear on this.

And some of those states, unlike say Massachusetts, didn't allow all whites to vote either; women obviously but some of the men too, and yet they got extra voting power.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
So, we come full circle. All else has failed miserably, so it's back to accusations of racism. Will the left never learn their lesson?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I googled these links for those interested. Getting at the truth is what we're about right? So lets find the answers.

(the EC is racist)
www.pbs.org - Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars...
(the EC isn't racist)
www.washingtonpost.com - In defense of the electoral college...

I've not yet concluded to my own satisfaction whether EC was racist in nature. Slaveholding might have been an impetus, but not the only factor. They might have been more concerned with large populated cities or states exerting tyrannical voting power over smaller ones?


It wouldn't work that way. If it were purely per man vote, then the few larger cities could be outvoted by the more numerous smaller towns. How could it be 'tyrannical'? Even in larger cities, there would be no winner-takes all. One candidate may win by 60 to 40%, but that 40% for the other candidate certainly counts and could easily be added to their votes from other places.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

If slaves were property, then why should they count at all for voting power, any more than swine and cattle? If slaves were people, then they should be voting. The fact that neither was true belies the reason.

Now today, there are other deleterious effects. Mainly that only a few states control the fate of the presidency. Instead of reducing the hypothetical tyranny of a small number of states dominating the others, the electoral college amplifies it.

Why shouldn't concerns of conservatives in Maryland, and liberals in Texas matter? In a true national vote, all votes matter. The country has far more homogenous information transmission and dissemination than in 1791. So what if California votes 60% Democratic---40% Republican votes of a large state matters. And if the vote were nationally additive, the candidates & their messages would be different so that the polarization in each state would probably be lower.


edit on 23-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
That argument is bogus you could say that about the constitution too, set up by old racist white men, how far back to people want to go to make an argument. By that standard any American in the history of the country that had a slave or underpaid a person of color was racist. Racist is an overused call now, it's so overused that it's like every time somebody uses it people roll their eyes now. Like when TYT said that 100% of Trump supporters were racist, clearly a lie when countless counties voted for Obama twice, then switched to Trump in 2016, they aren't racist, and they proved it.
So people that keep saying this are completely delusional.
Now if they said sexist, maybe that might be worth looking into, but so many women voted for Trump too.

No, the electoral college isn't racist, if anything it excels in taking power from the urban power centers of New York and California, and doesn't allow those cultures to rule the entire country, I think that is a good thing. It's the same as every State having 2 senators regardless of population, a bad deal for California but awesome for a state like Alaska.

The American system is set up so that one culture in one part of the county can't control the rest who don't share that same culture. The mob in Urban super centers doesn't always know best. This election proved that.
edit on 23-12-2016 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

No, that's just like your opinion but shes absolutely right it's roots are deep in racism


No, she's wrong. Its roots are in federalism.


and it should be abolished.


And that is an opinion.


Americans have been wanting to get rid of the EC since it's inception.


Most Americans don't even know we have an Electoral College until it matters. When it does, the burden falls upon people with civics educations and clear understanding of the Original Intent to prevent Democracy from overwhelming the Republic to educate the masses and help them understand the brilliance of the system.


People bitching about it this year is nothing new.


On that we can agree.


If I remember correctly, America has tried over 700 times to get rid of it but still it stands.


700 tries in 200 years, according to the National Archives.
edit on 23-12-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: jonnywhite

If slaves were property, then why should they count at all for voting power, any more than swine and cattle? If slaves were people, then they should be voting. The fact that neither was true belies the reason.


That was the argument of the anti-slavery states in the north. As far as they were concerned, slaves should count as 0 people so long as they did not have freedom/ability to vote.

Meanwhile the slave states in the south were concerned that if their slaves did not count towards state population, then they would lose Representation in the House. The Senate was not an issue, since they would have two Senators regardless.

There was a great push to annul the Articles of Confederation and ratify the Constitution. A majority of States needed to ratify or else the AoC would continue to be in effect, and there were stronger countries in Europe scoping out the USA for weakspots.

The 3/5 compromise was the best way to get the southern States on board, pacify the northern States to prevent the south from overpowering the federal government, and lay the groundwork to eventually abolish slavery throughout the nation with the consent of the governed.


Now today, there are other deleterious effects. Mainly that only a few states control the fate of the presidency. Instead of reducing the hypothetical tyranny of a small number of states dominating the others, the electoral college amplifies it.


Not true. Every state contributes. There are some that are more safe than others for each party, but it still takes the motivation of the People to show up and make their voices heard. Even California could turn red if enough conservatives and Republicans showed up while liberals and Democrats stay home (and illegals are discounted.)


Why shouldn't concerns of conservatives in Maryland, and liberals in Texas matter?


They do, in terms of Representatives as well as local government. Remember, the original intent was decentralization.. Local politicians are supposed to have more influence on our lives than the Federal Government.


In a true national vote, all votes matter.


All votes do matter. In their states.


The country has far more homogenous information transmission and dissemination than in 1791. So what if California votes 60% Democratic---40% Republican votes of a large state matters. And if the vote were nationally additive, the candidates & their messages would be different so that the polarization in each state would probably be lower.


I disagree. There would be even more of a push to lock down the votes in urban population centers and intimidate the opposition.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Oh no they buy it... that's a certainty.

The race card is getting so boring....

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: xuenchen

I really wonder if the "Left" members of the board actually shake their heads at this kind of BS or if they really buy into it.




top topics



 
52
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join