2020 Primaries

#4,601
#4,601
Weezer said:
No, it wasn't. Confusing the Three-Fifths Compromise with the reason they decided on the EC does nothing to help your case. They decided on the EC first, then when debating on how population should be counted, they agreed upon the 3/5 Compromise.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Weezer and 0nelilreb
#4,602
#4,602
OHvol40 said:
So enlighten me. Who was the EC intended for, and for what purpose? Who pushed for it when debating the ratification of the constitution and for what practical reasons? What was the 3/5ths compromise?

I always love to learn.
Click to expand...

Initially, it was proposed Congress would choose the President. Then they decided that would conflict with separation of powers. So they decided on electors. The number of electors a state has is based upon population, hence the 3/5 Compromise.

As for who supported it, obviously enough people to include it in the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, McDad and AM64
#4,603
#4,603
OHvol40 said:
Lol
Click to expand...
I agree. It's funny how little you know compared to how much you think you know. The Constitution does not call for election by popular vote. It provides for the EC. If you don't agree, others have noted the process tp change it. Good luck on getting two thirds of the states to agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and AM64
#4,604
#4,604
Weezer said:
Initially, it was proposed Congress would choose the President. Then they decided that would conflict with separation of powers. So they decided on electors. The number of electors a state has is based upon population, hence the 3/5 Compromise.

As for who supported it, obviously enough people to include it in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Which representatives from which states made the motion? What was their rationale? This is all well documented but I’m enjoying your history lesson.
 
#4,605
#4,605
Weezer said:
I agree. It's funny how little you know compared to how much you think you know. The Constitution does not call for election by popular vote. It provides for the EC. If you don't agree, others have noted the process tp change it. Good luck on getting two thirds of the states to agree.
Click to expand...

A built-in safeguard to an unfair system is proof that it’s fair?
 
#4,607
#4,607
0nelilreb said:
It proves they ( FF) have you and like minded people a way to change it if you saw fit . You obviously see fit , so what’s the hold up ?
Click to expand...

So you’re suggesting large scale gerrymandering to fix the problem? Candidates picking their voters to fix the problem?

This is what happens, the people whom this system benefits argue “it was created this way, so fix it if you want it fixed” instead of actually debating the fairness behind the system.
 
#4,608
#4,608
OHvol40 said:
So you’re suggesting large scale gerrymandering to fix the problem? Candidates picking their voters to fix the problem?

This is what happens, the people whom this system benefits argue “it was created this way, so fix it if you want it fixed” instead of actually debating the fairness behind the system.
Click to expand...

I’m suggesting exactly what the FF suggested you do if you didn’t like something in the constitution. No more , no less . The system doesn’t benefit me anymore than it does you , we are all equal . I think it’s fair , you don’t , we just canceled each other out .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,609
#4,609
OHvol40 said:
Which representatives from which states made the motion? What was their rationale? This is all well documented but I’m enjoying your history lesson.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even matter what each representative preferred. They had to come up with a form of federal government that all 13 states agreed upon and ratified. I could be mistaken, but IIRC, 9 states had to ratify the Constitution for it to become effective. Any state that didn't ratify the Constitution would not be part of the new government.

Are you noticing yet how the FFs emphasized the power of individual states? They came up with the EC because everyone could live with it. The more populous states get more electors, but every state has a voice. Not sure where your lack of comprehension is coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs and 0nelilreb
#4,610
#4,610
0nelilreb said:
I’m suggesting exactly what the FF suggested you do if you didn’t like something in the constitution. No more , no less . The system doesn’t benefit me anymore than it does you , we are all equal . I think it’s fair , you don’t , we just canceled each other out .
Click to expand...

More US citizens support popular vote than support the EC.
 
#4,615
#4,615
0nelilreb said:
“IF “ that’s true , that makes it all the more puzzling as to why we still haven’t changed it . What’s your thoughts on why that is ?
Click to expand...

Really? Because the way senate and amendments were organized makes this particular issue impossible to change.
 
#4,620
#4,620
Weezer said:
Which is why the EC was agreed upon to begin with. Every state wanted a voice. They didn't want larger states making all the decisions for every one.
Click to expand...

Which is why they have their own local and state governments as well as equal representation in one house of Congress. It has no place in a presidential election.
 
#4,621
#4,621
OHvol40 said:
Really? Because the way senate and amendments were organized makes this particular issue impossible to change.
Click to expand...

The constitution has been amended 27 times . The last time it was amended was in 1992. There have been a total of 33 amendments approved by congress and sent to the states for ratification. What were you saying ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#4,622
#4,622
0nelilreb said:
The constitution has been amended 27 times . The last time it was amended was in 1992. There have been a total of 33 amendments approved by congress and sent to the states for ratification. What were you saying ?
Click to expand...

Right, but none of them had to do with low population states giving up the power to have greater influence in presidential elections.

Why don’t we do this with any other election if it’s fair? Why don’t gubernatorial elections run this way?
 
#4,623
#4,623
luthervol said:
I would vote for a rock hard dog turd.

What makes me SMH is how anyone could have ever supported Trump without fully expecting that justifiable reaction.
What in the hell were you guys thinking?
A question for the ages.
Click to expand...

Geez, haven’t you figured out by now that the insane reactions from the liberals are exactly why some folks voted for Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs and 0nelilreb
#4,624
#4,624
OHvol40 said:
Right, but none of them had to do with low population states giving up the power to have greater influence in presidential elections.

Why don’t we do this with any other election if it’s fair? Why don’t gubernatorial elections run this way?
Click to expand...

What does it matter which amendment it is if MOST PEOPLE want it changed to just the popular vote . According to you it shouldn’t matter , if MOST want it changed . Because the EC is specifically designated in the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top