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 ...
Discount Ca & NY states Trump thumped Hillary he beat her in the popular vote by 3 million.
The waste states just found out what they are worth.
The left now has come up with the justification that the electoral college was because of slavery. If any of these geniuses would bother to read the history rather than just repeat Nation of Islam crap it might be useful
> Do the electors ONLY confirm the POTUS race or do they not also, confirm the federal HoR and Senate race votes?
I’m no expert on this topic, but from what I’ve seen so far, electing the President and Vice President is their task. Also they don’t meet together and make a decision as a body. “The Electoral College never actually meets as one body. Electors meet in their respective state capitals (electors for the District of Columbia meet within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for president and vice president.”
“...Before 1950, the Secretary of State’s office oversaw the certifications, but since then the Office of Federal Register in the Archivist’s office reviews them to make sure the documents sent to the archive and Congress match and that all formalities have been followed, sometimes requiring states to correct the documents.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
> Might I use your post as partial fodder for mt text regarding the EC?
You’re welcome to anything in it. The idea about people not wishing to be ruled by larger — and sometimes dissimilar — populations in distant places is just common sense, and the rest about the various plans is just basic American history.
Many moons ago, mentioning Upstatehood to local and state pols got you rolled eyes, laughter, and jokes about butterfly nets.
Now the state and local pols raise the subject first. And they AIN’T laughing.
My, how times have changed.
Appreciated.
This may be more “fodder” than you wish or need, but here’s what I said about this topic in an earlier discussion (just in case anyone is still interested :-).
There’s no doubt about the history, and how the electoral college came about. What remains is the question, “Is it fair?” (That’s a value judgment, and in my opinion value judgments are not susceptible to proof the way questions of fact are.) The argument on the anti side is that a person’s vote in a big state should be worth just as much as a person’s vote in a small state.
The argument on the pro side is that people in small states wouldn’t have agreed to join with large states if population alone was going to determine representation (and would seek independence if already joined — that’s what so many separatist civil wars are about). In other words, is it fair for people to be ruled by distant larger populations whose interests may differ considerably?
That’s partially what the American Revolution was about, and the host of other wars of independence that have been fought around the world for the last couple of centuries. Also, to make the point more obvious, I brought up the analogy of the United States merging with China. In that instance, should the vote of an American be worth more than the vote of a Chinese? I suppose not, but would you want to be joined with China under those conditions? Would it be fair for Americans to be ruled by the choices of more numerous Chinese?
The differences between Americans in large states and small states are not that great, but they are considerable.
> Appreciated.
You’re welcome.
Exactly!
I will assume that I can use this also?
We must, as Americans, define the role of the EC and eliminate “modern interpretation” of their task, such that vis-a-vis, ideological interpretation wins the day.
Si?
The NYT endorsed and supported the mass murderer Stalin and does so to this day. Nothing more needs to be said concerning the NYT.
And another steaming pile from the NY. slimes.......
Yes, you’re welcome to that too. I don’t claim exclusive use of ideas or even expressions that I put into posts.
You will, at the very least, given a “hat-tip”.
PAX
Thanks.
True, the NYTimes almost certainly DID declare it “backwards” deliberately!
The compromise of discounting the slave population to REDUCE the influence of slave states DID permit BOTH slave and free states to join the republic. No compromise = NO united States. Which is probably also the NYTimes’ position.
Liberals will use race card arguments EVERY TIME as a tool to destroy liberty.
Scrap the NYT for stupidity. They’re like saying two BB teams play a seven game series. Team A won two games with a total combined score of 34; Team B won the rest of the remaining four games left with a total combined score of 17 therefor Team A should have won since they scored more runs.
Just imagine an alternate reality where Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
Would we be hearing the tiniest protest from the New York Times? Or—would we hearing about the glorious historic moment of electing the first woman president.
The question answers itself.
That is why serious people don’t take anything The Gray Whore says seriously.
Bookmark
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.