General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAs long as we're getting rid of monuments to slave owners,
shouldn't the electoral college also be on the list?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,096 posts)leftieNanner
(14,997 posts)We have much work to do next year!
Paladin
(28,202 posts)sop
(9,943 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,161 posts)You can keep your racist statues, and well take something that actually matters the electoral college.
UTUSN
(70,494 posts)fierywoman
(7,641 posts)brush
(53,467 posts)Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)IronLionZion
(45,250 posts)since they are denying their citizens the right to vote
geardaddy
(24,924 posts)Thanks for sharing this.
Celerity
(42,630 posts)Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
IronLionZion
(45,250 posts)ie minorities. We can try to get them on purging voter registrations of people who were not convicted of any crimes but just had a similar name or changed addresses or something innocent like that.
But mostly they really hate the first section of the 14th amendment because it gives me birthright citizenship. No matter how hard they argue about what "real Americans" look like, it doesn't change where I was born.
niyad
(112,424 posts)Snap! Perfect logic in that.
CountMyVote4Reality
(209 posts)crickets
(25,896 posts)bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)KS Toronado
(16,900 posts)Kaleva
(36,145 posts)yellowdogintexas
(22,114 posts)Upthevibe
(7,879 posts)Electorial College.....
Capt. America
(2,477 posts)FBaggins
(26,693 posts)The misconception is usually fueled by so many small-population states being red today and the perception that red states are in some sense more-racist... but the EC was a compromise between large/small population states during the founding era. And those didn't correlate with North/South or slave/free.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)It's known as the 3/5 compromise.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)The OP was about the EC... which was not created to perpetuate slavery.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)to their states' populations. As Madison himself said:
A racist policy, the 3/5 Compromise, was already in place to apportion seats in Congress, so they might as well apply it to the EC, as well.
Even now, the system hurts Black voters:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/
Despite black voting patterns to the contrary, five of the six states whose populations are 25 percent or more black have been reliably red in recent presidential elections. Three of those states have not voted for a Democrat in more than four decades. Under the Electoral College, black votes are submerged. Its the precise reason for the success of the southern strategy. Its precisely how, as Buckley might say, the South has prevailed.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)The EC balanced the interests of small vs large states while the 3/5 compromise balanced slave/free... but those aren't the same groups. There were large and small states in both the North and South.
The Madison quote is not related to the characteristic of the EC that gives smaller states relatively more power than the larger ones in selecting the executive (the current objection). He was talking about electors vs direct voting (and in relation to executive re-eligibility, not election). His point is equally valid if the electoral college was apportioned by population alone.
IronLionZion
(45,250 posts)always blocked and filibustered by Dixiecrats and rural conservatives because it benefits them.
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)The groups that the EC currently helps are not evidence for why it was originally created.
C Moon
(12,188 posts)LymphocyteLover
(5,601 posts)llashram
(6,265 posts)and gave us this current disaster-trainwreck of a POTUS even though HRC had almost 3 million more popular votes than the disaster-trainwreck
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)to remove a statue. And an angry mob can't rip the EC out of the Constitution.
All it takes is thirteen states to say, "No, we like the EC the way it is," and it stays. I'm sure there are at least fifteen states that feel that way.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)I think you're being generous at 15.
Just a quick mental run through of states, I counted 20 that would be unlikely to sign on.
I like the sentiment.
But, I believe it's a pipe dream.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)And every time someone bemoans the fact that Wyoming has as many Senators as New York or California, I always reply that Congress voted on accepting new states into the Union on those terms, including Senators of the most populous states.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Why does no one mention this one?
Doreen
(11,686 posts)calimary
(80,693 posts)"As long as we're getting rid of monuments to slave owners, shouldn't the electoral college also be on the list?"
The Question of the Year, vlyons! Of the last four years, actually.
Poiuyt
(18,087 posts)jaxexpat
(6,700 posts)brooklynite
(93,834 posts)MarcA
(2,195 posts)Especially when those structures are being used to subvert democracy and justice.
Josiesdad
(43 posts)If you are familiar with Professor Bogus' famous essay on the History of the Second Amendment (and others) he make a very compelling case that the original intent of adding the right to bear arms to the bill of rights was to entice Madison's home state (Virginia) into ratifying the newly proposed constitution. They were reluctant to get behind it up to that point. Their major concern was that their Slave Patrol (aka State Militia) would, under the new constitution, fall under the control of the federal government and would no longer be their protection against slave revolts. This fear was a very real and long standing in the south in this era and was mentioned prominently ('... HE HAS EXCITED DOMESTIC INSURRECTIONS ...') in our Declaration of Independence.
So... if an argument can be made that the electoral college should be abolished as a vestige enshrined in the constitution to protect the institution of slavery... A much stronger argument can be made that the 2nd amendment's only useful purpose was to protect Slave Owners. It too is an anachronism and should be repealed.