Skip to main content

View Diary: What nobody is addressing about the Electoral Vote-rigging scheme (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where In the World Did America Ever Give Any (15+ / 0-)

    nation our Constitutional system? Don't we always give conquered nations parliamentary systems?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:08:56 PM PST

    •  I recall a story (14+ / 0-)

      It was maybe twenty years ago when the USSR was breaking up and some new country was writing a new constitution and setting up an economic system. So they brought over some Americans to advise them. The Americans said, straight out, you want a parliamentary system, not the electoral college system.

      “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

      by Dbug on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 12:07:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It think it served us well, though (7+ / 0-)

      We were a rapidly expanding empire, only reaching our current territorial peak in the 50s.  The Electoral College reflects the primacy of the states in our country.  No matter how much the reactionaries hide behind the concept, states rights allowed us to become the country we are today for better and worse.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:29:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wasatch, slothlax

        We can't ignore the many strengths of the Constitution, the values that endure even to this day and have made our country what it is.

        At the same time, it's fair to acknowledge when the Constitution has reached its limits, as with privacy issues and internet regulation, and that we should be willing to take on the task of changing what's necessary for the society in which we currently live.

      •  Like it or not, it's a vestige of slavery... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Bisbonian

        ...and the 3/5ths rule.

        The plantation owners with large numbers of slaves wanted them counted as individuals for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

        Theoretically, if you had enough slaves (and women), you could elect yourself to Congress by being the only registered voter in your election district. You might "represent" ten thousand slaves, women, and children while being the only person able to vote.

        Such "full representation" also meant more seats in the House for the slaveholding states and a greater say for those states in the election of a President.

        The Northern states argued that slaves should not be represented, while the slaveholding states demanded all slaves count fully toward representation. They compromised that each slave be counted at 3/5ths of a person.

        It sort of turns reality on its head, but the same slaveholders who denied freedom and humanity to slaves demanded slaves be fully counted as people for purposes of Congressional apportionment, while those who opposed slavery demanded they not be counted.

        •  I know about the 3/5ths rule (0+ / 0-)

          But I wouldn't say the Electoral College is a vestige of that.  The 3/5ths rule was a way to game the system.

          The country saw itself as a collection of states in the early republic.  The Electoral College reflects that conception.  We have more of a national identity today, but we still organize ourselves politically by states.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:56:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We agree, but are talking past one another... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slothlax

            The country did, in fact, see itself as a collection of sovereign states at the founding....but the question was whether they should be equal in choosing a President...or how much weight should be given to each state....

            The compromise was that we would "sort of" base electoral votes on population (including non-voting white women and children and counting slaves as 3/5th). But we chose white men to do the voting for them as representatives of the state as electors. This was a way to allow wealthy slaveowners to have a far, far greater say than northern farmers or shopkeepers or tradesmen.

    •  We almost never conquer nations. (0+ / 0-)

      and those we do we have given the countries the right to craft their own constitutions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site