Does "liberal" still actually mean nice? Are leftists still claiming to be the "nice" ones and conservatives are "mean" or what?

[PozBearWI]

And sadly all this posturing on the campaign trail seems to never result in the population who actually want things to work well for most of us; and it instead tends to serve the minority.

[hntnhole]

15 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

But under electoral college, our votes don’t count equally at all

You're completely correct:  There are some antiquated practices enshrined in our election process that should have hit the bricks decades ago, and that's a big one.  

My impression is the E.C. was created because there were a substantial number of uneducated (i.e., basic reading/writing skills), when the Nation was formed, and those unfortunates relied on that system to partially alleviate the built-in inequity between the literate and the non.  

Since the E.C. is enshrined in the Constitution though, ditching it would be cumbersome, and it seems that there are always more pressing matters at hand.  Now that the antiquated system of Electors has been used in an attempt to overthrow the electoral process, as well as Democracy itself, the proof of that pudding's lack of viability could hardly be more clear.  

I'd love to see it go away. 

[DallasPozzible]

15 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I'd love to see it go away

As would I. I don’t think there’s a ghost of a chance of that. I can’t envision ANY constitutional amendment on any topic that could be ratified today. 

The only hope for EC reform is the National Popular Vote compact. Many states have already signed it. States signing it agree that when enough states sign it to comprise a majority of EVs, that all states in the compact would cast their EVs for the winner of the national popular vote regardless of who won their individual states. An end run around the EC. I’ve heard some politicians speak very optimistically about it.

i have my doubts though. The first time the states in the compact cast their votes in a way that contra the traditional EC votes would go, the Supreme Court would likely get involved. And not in a good way. 

[hntnhole]

Agreed.  And, there just may be a sliver of a chance after November.  

If there is a decisive victory for the Dems (it's possible, given the enraged women having lost their rights to health-care), and majorities are reached in each branch (applicable to State races too), we might be able to ditch it once and for all.  Now, given all the electronic doo-dads which are part of voting, the contrivance of the E.C. seems particularly antiquated. 

XX = fingers crossed 

[BootmanLA]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:42 AM, J-raw said:

I really appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think Georgia will go to Trump. Stacy Abrams' organization was going to a lot of minority homes and an online registering and then voting for people. That's a fact, I talked to someone that was paid. It was all legal & fair play technically. The Problem is that trick only works once and when Abrams ran for governor again two years later she lost by 10%. It's a toss up whether Trump will lose the suburban vote over abortion, but I think Biden's going to lose some suburban/middle class votes over his cancelation of student debt after they paid their own way through college. I think the primaries are producing fringe candidates. Wish the conventions would go back to the old method of selecting the nominee in the back room.

I don't think it's entirely a "trick only works once" sort of thing.

For starters, Georgia governor's races are two years apart from the presidential elections, and turnout usually varies substantially between federal and state elections. The 2020 turnout was 66.2% in GA, 57% in 2022 (reflecting more the lack of national support that should be present again this November. I'll also note that among middle of the road voters - that is, neither MAGAts nor Social Democrats - Biden's considered a lot more moderate than Abrams, and thus may have been more palatable (and we can't ignore that there are some moderates who just won't vote for a black person for statewide office).

I do agree that primaries sometimes produce fringe candidates, but to call Biden "fringe" betrays a lack of understanding I don't think I've seen in a while. The vast majority of people I've seen upset about student debt cancellation are Trumpanzees, many of whom never set foot on a college campus except maybe to watch a football game. The suburban/middle class voters I talk to are glad not everyone else is going to face the same debt devastation they did.

[Rillion]

On 4/17/2024 at 9:05 AM, hntnhole said:

You're completely correct:  There are some antiquated practices enshrined in our election process that should have hit the bricks decades ago, and that's a big one.  

My impression is the E.C. was created because there were a substantial number of uneducated (i.e., basic reading/writing skills), when the Nation was formed, and those unfortunates relied on that system to partially alleviate the built-in inequity between the literate and the non.  

Since the E.C. is enshrined in the Constitution though, ditching it would be cumbersome, and it seems that there are always more pressing matters at hand.  Now that the antiquated system of Electors has been used in an attempt to overthrow the electoral process, as well as Democracy itself, the proof of that pudding's lack of viability could hardly be more clear.  

I'd love to see it go away. 

The Electoral College is a direct result of slavery. It goes hand in hand with the 3/5ths compromise. Slave states did not want direct election of the President because they had few voters than free states. If the popular vote was used to elect the president a slave state of 100,000 adults where half the population were slaves would only have about 25,000 adult males that would be eligible to vote while a free state with 80,000 adults would have roughly 40,000 adult males eligible to vote. 

The Electoral College gives every state a number of electors that equals the number of house reps determined by by the census plus two for the senators. Number of House reps is determined by population where slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person. So slave states got to increase their number of representatives based on a portion of the number of humans that were classified as property with no rights. 

 

The very basis of how our federal government was structured from the election of representatives to the election of the president was a compromise centered around the issue of slavery. 

The Senate was created to protect small population states from being dominated by large population states, so the EC system helped them as well with the inclusion of 2 extra electors to each state. 

Edited April 19 by Rillion

[hntnhole]

Thanks, Rillion, for that interesting perspective.

Given that the Electoral College was established in 1787*, when no women were allowed to vote, let alone the enslaved "property" in Southern States, or Native Americans, it may be that institutionalized slavery affected the institution of the Electoral College, I would maintain that the Amendment was aimed at those who could legally vote, namely Caucasian landowners, regardless of their level of education. 

A common practice at the time was for underage Caucasian boys to take up a trade (farming, animal husbandry, small business, shop keepers, etc.) and when they had achieved enough success to purchase property, they were also allowed to vote.  Even Caucasians who did not own property were excluded from voting, which inequity (for Caucasians, of course) was addressed through the E.C., thus providing some small measure of "voice" only to Caucasian males within the electoral system.  

*with certain Constitutional Amendments to that Act at various points since.  I still think it's an anachronism that should have been thrown out many years ago.  Given that the E.C. was used to attempt a revolution in the US very recently, it's clearly time to advance the voting process into the current Century.

Thanks for adding your perspective.  

[BootmanLA]

22 hours ago, hntnhole said:

A common practice at the time was for underage Caucasian boys to take up a trade (farming, animal husbandry, small business, shop keepers, etc.) and when they had achieved enough success to purchase property, they were also allowed to vote.  Even Caucasians who did not own property were excluded from voting,

Generally speaking, that's (partly) true, but eligibility to vote was a state-by-state thing and things changed rapidly in the early years. In the colonies (pre-1776), one had to be a freeholder (property owner) over the age of 21 to vote. That covered up to 75% of the adult males in some states, because with vast amounts of land available in the colonies, it wasn't too hard to become a freeholder (again, assuming you were male and 21 or older and - it goes without saying - white). 

When the 13 original colonies declared independence, each drafted a constitution (sometimes by another name) for itself, and about half these new states granted the franchise to all taxpaying males of the age of majority, rather than just to those who owned property. Vermont went farther and granted the vote to all adult males without regard for taxpaying or property-owning status. By the Civil War, this had become the norm (but not quite universal) among American states.

It wasn't until the 15th Amendment that a federal law (in this case, a change tot he Constitution) created the first "voting right" that applied nationwide (though, as we know, enforcement of that change took nearly a century to begin and is still not complete today). Subsequent amendments (creating voting rights for women - 1920; for persons over 18 - 1971) expanded that "right to vote."

That said, there is still no freestanding "right to vote" under the US constitution - these amendments basically say that *IF* a law (constitution or statute) allows for a vote, *THEN* government can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for persons 18 or older. States have to allow people to vote for their state legislators, since every state is guaranteed a "republican" (small-R) form of government. But beyond that, states could pretty much make almost any position they wanted appointed, rather than elected, as long as that's not inconsistent with a republican form of government. 

[hntnhole]

Thanks, as always, for that comprehensive explanation.  

[PozBearWI]

On 4/20/2024 at 12:40 PM, hntnhole said:

Thanks, Rillion, for that interesting perspective.

Given that the Electoral College was established in 1787*, when no women were allowed to vote, let alone the enslaved "property" in Southern States, or Native Americans, it may be that institutionalized slavery affected the institution of the Electoral College, I would maintain that the Amendment was aimed at those who could legally vote, namely Caucasian landowners, regardless of their level of education. 

A common practice at the time was for underage Caucasian boys to take up a trade (farming, animal husbandry, small business, shop keepers, etc.) and when they had achieved enough success to purchase property, they were also allowed to vote.  Even Caucasians who did not own property were excluded from voting, which inequity (for Caucasians, of course) was addressed through the E.C., thus providing some small measure of "voice" only to Caucasian males within the electoral system.  

*with certain Constitutional Amendments to that Act at various points since.  I still think it's an anachronism that should have been thrown out many years ago.  Given that the E.C. was used to attempt a revolution in the US very recently, it's clearly time to advance the voting process into the current Century.

Thanks for adding your perspective.  

Thanks for those perspectives.  We should also note that we weren't as a whole a particularly well educated society; and thus many couldn't read or write; which was also a significant factor in created EC.  

[BootmanLA]

On 4/21/2024 at 5:30 PM, PozBearWI said:

Thanks for those perspectives.  We should also note that we weren't as a whole a particularly well educated society; and thus many couldn't read or write; which was also a significant factor in created EC.  

Granted. It also shows how things have changed; back then, the rich and powerful wanted to keep the vote for themselves. Now they're happy to share it with the Great Unwashed Morons as long as they're white and (mostly) Southern.

[viking8x6]

Just now, BootmanLA said:

Granted. It also shows how things have changed; back then, the rich and powerful wanted to keep the vote for themselves. Now they're happy to share it with the Great Unwashed Morons as long as they're white and (mostly) Southern.

Of course they are. Or with anyone else who is easily manipulated. Doing it that way keeps the power almost as firmly in their hands, and has much better optics.

[KERVORKIANjack]

11 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Granted. It also shows how things have changed; back then, the rich and powerful wanted to keep the vote for themselves. Now they're happy to share it with the Great Unwashed Morons as long as they're white and (mostly) Southern.

so I may not be American but my parents both think Trump's an "idiot" etc, but both of them have been in hospital for being too stupid to wash themselves (in my mother's case it was life-saving and she needed major surgery)

I bet Joe Biden doesnt wash his hands after using the toilet too, that dumbass white trash piece of shit.

[BootmanLA]

1 minute ago, KEVORKIANKEVORKIAN said:

so I may not be American but my parents both think Trump's an "idiot" etc, but both of them have been in hospital for being too stupid to wash themselves (in my mother's case it was life-saving and she needed major surgery)

I bet Joe Biden doesnt wash his hands after using the toilet too, that dumbass white trash piece of shit.

And you would know this how, exactly? 

[KERVORKIANjack]

Just now, BootmanLA said:

And you would know this how, exactly? 

The same way you "knew" WWIII was going to start under Trump

 

Whoops!