Posted on 12/23/2016 4:38:48 AM PST by Kaslin
The New York Times endorsed the election of presidents by popular vote in the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The Times resorts to playing the race card by arguing that the original reason for the Electoral College was to favor the Southern slave states:
The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America's original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did gave the slave states more electoral votes.
This race argument is based on the essays by attorney Donald Applestein and Yale law professor, Aklhil Amar, who argue that counting each slave as three fifths of a person added to the population of the slave states, thereby giving the slave states more representatives in the House and therefore more electoral votes than it would have if slaves were not counted.
The Times is linking the argument for a popular vote election to labeling the Electoral College as a living symbol of slavery that must be abolished. We fought a civil war to end slavery, but the Times dredges up slavery as reason to endorse the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
>>>Because of the electoral college CA and NY will not be the slave masters over the rest of the country<<<
Not even CA and New York, just Los Angeles County and NYC if you throw in Brooklyn and Queens.
That’s her entire lead right there.
Last time I’m going to tell these idiots: you don’t have enough states to ratify, nor will you ever...
Then the same logic applies to change in the Constitution
I.E You would change the Constitution by popular vote too and not by vote of the states
It's a slippery slope... because the vast majority of the physical country would be ruled by a few dictatorial Urban centers.... and you know that's exactly what the left wants
The rest of the country would rebel in short order into a civil war
Far better to let the few high population concentration Urban centers leave before we give them any power over the rest of the country
The irony is slavery argument really also applies to the urban centers
High concentrations of people in certain Urban areas that are nothing but vassals of a few Elites. because of the high population it gives them extra weight in ruling the country
No doubt.
It’s just nonsense. The Electoral College had nothing to do with slavery at all - yet they argue that it did simply because they don’t like the outcome of the election. The slavery issue had to do with how population was allocated which could affect the number of House members (and therefore Electors) a state had, but that was of course long, long gone by 2016 - makes absolutely no sense!
A obvious solution is to re-institute slavery and then we can keep the EC.
Slavery! Slavery! Slavery! Evidently they can never forget it! No matter how much is done to heal this imperfect but God Blessed/Blessing Nation.
Slavery...it’s a good thing that the Republican Party came along to abolish it. Otherwise the Democrats would still have it in full operation - in fact, they continue to this day to re-impose it through taking blacks out of the workforce and putting them on welfare and public housing.
The current “Thing” will have blood on his hands, but wait he already does. January 20th brings in change we can feel safe in. Stupid asses that voted that “Thing” in twice should live in shame but they won’t because their minds are seared.
Even within those states, there are large areas that oppose the big city elitist agenda. Combined, significantly more than half the counties in those states went for Trump.
slaver was legal in NY till 1799, someone might want to pass that along to the Times, who apparently read different history books than I did....or didn’t read any at all.
What the hell does the electoral college have to do with slavery?
Absolutely nothing. The words Slave or Slavery is not even in the constitution.
Furthermore, a straight up national popular vote for president requires one more thing… national reciprocity of vote legitimacy. For State A to recognize the legitimacy of State B votes/voters, State A is going to want all of the voters from State B to be vetted/accredited/accounted for in a similar fashion as their own State A voters. Basically, any state that requires voter IDs if going to want every other state’s voters to be similarly qualified if all the votes get lumped together nationally. I believe a push for nationwide popular vote will see a big counter-demand for nationwide standardization of Voter ID Law.....I'm just saying that if you lump ALL people from all states together into one big pool of popular votes – certain states are going to DEMAND that if you individual votes to count equally across state lines, then the qualifications to across state lines should also be identical/equal. And frankly, it’s not an unreasonable request....Unfortunately, the only way to really do that is implementing some sort of ID law or something… and getting all sides to agree to some sort uniform voter registration/ID is going to be like herding cats. Realistically, I don’t see it happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.