Eliminating Electoral College would leave out middle

Christian Soldier wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Your just spouting the same tired crap that denies actual history.
These guys: Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law at Yale Law School, where he teaches constitutional law, criminal procedure, and federal jurisdiction, and has given endowed lectures at over two dozen universities. David Amar is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
They were the were the ones who really tied together all the myths and the overlay of slavery in this process in a succinct package.
By the way Rick, the Constitution does little to outline the process for electing a President and gives states the nod to do work out the method. Even the amendment process did little to clarify the matter.
The simple fact is that we can amend the Constitution to enable all men and women in this nation the right to vote the way it logically should be for the Chief Executive.
As far as you other opinions. Who cares? I suppose in your version of the zeitgeist of tomorrow slavery will once again become the norm.

Where are the links? How accepted and supported are their writings and lectures?

Sure we can amend the Constitution. Could luck with that. Doesn't it take 3/4 of the states?

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
Where are the links? How accepted and supported are their writings and lectures?
Sure we can amend the Constitution. Could luck with that. Doesn't it take 3/4 of the states?
Rick

Rick, just Google the author names, the work is considered seminal.

Nobody said it would be easy Rick, but as long as people want to hold onto the electoral college because they think it is practically handed down from God, then it won't change and we'll deny the rights of each American to have their say in the election of the President.

The other thing that is in serious need of repair is all the "gerrymandering" of Congressional districts, but that one is even tougher to deal with.

Oh, and the Ahmar's are brothers.

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

Oh, and the Ahmar's are brothers.
Rick

Rick - Your ego is amazing.

I really think this guy knows a bit more about the Electoral College then you.

http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/aamar.htm

I know, he must be a secret Muslim terrorist...

Christian Soldier wrote:

<quoted text>
Rick - Your ego is amazing.
I really think this guy knows a bit more about the Electoral College then you.
http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/aamar.htm
I know, he must be a secret Muslim terrorist...

Sure he knows more, but that doesn't mean he is right. It seems that the two brothers are the only ones making the claim and the basis for the claim is that the South favored the electoral college. He has made a leap of logic here in saying that the only reason the South supported the electoral college was to continue slavery. But, I have already shown you that there was no real movement in the US to abolish slavery until the 1830's.

Besides, this is a law professor, not an historian. Do you believe everything every professor says?

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure he knows more, but that doesn't mean he is right. It seems that the two brothers are the only ones making the claim and the basis for the claim is that the South favored the electoral college. He has made a leap of logic here in saying that the only reason the South supported the electoral college was to continue slavery. But, I have already shown you that there was no real movement in the US to abolish slavery until the 1830's.
Besides, this is a law professor, not an historian. Do you believe everything every professor says?
Rick

No Rick - I am pretty skeptical of any line of crap that people try to suck others into.

Let's see, Not one, but two professors of law. One a Yale professor of Constitutional Law since 1984 sets forth an eloquent, logical case for exposing the Electoral College as a support mechanism for slavery. And other rationale for why it really has no real function in choosing the Chief Executive.

On the other side there's you... This is tough....

No, I'm afraid your line of crap loses once again.

Christian Soldier wrote:

<quoted text>
No Rick - I am pretty skeptical of any line of crap that people try to suck others into.
Let's see, Not one, but two professors of law. One a Yale professor of Constitutional Law since 1984 sets forth an eloquent, logical case for exposing the Electoral College as a support mechanism for slavery. And other rationale for why it really has no real function in choosing the Chief Executive.
On the other side there's you... This is tough....
No, I'm afraid your line of crap loses once again.

We are basically arguing over two brothers. Their analysis is not supported by anyone else. You can choose to accept their viewpoint over all others, if you wish. I don't wish, particulaly since there was no great movement to abolish slavery in the 1780's.

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
We are basically arguing over two brothers. Their analysis is not supported by anyone else. You can choose to accept their viewpoint over all others, if you wish. I don't wish, particulaly since there was no great movement to abolish slavery in the 1780's.
Rick

"The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had strong religious objections to slavery. Rhode Island Quakers, associated with Moses Brown, co-founder of Brown University [1], and who also settled at Uxbridge, Massachusetts prior to 1770, were among the first in America to free slaves. The society ceased to operate during the Revolution and the British occupation of Philadelphia. After the Revolution, it was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as its first president.[7] Benjamin Rush was another leader, as were many Quakers. John Woolman gave up most of his business in 1756 to devote himself to campaigning against slavery along with other Quakers.[8] The first article published in what later became the United States advocating the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery was written by Thomas Paine. Titled "African Slavery in America", it appeared on March 8, 1775 in the Postscript to the Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser"

WPB wrote:

<quoted text>
"The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had strong religious objections to slavery. Rhode Island Quakers, associated with Moses Brown, co-founder of Brown University [1], and who also settled at Uxbridge, Massachusetts prior to 1770, were among the first in America to free slaves. The society ceased to operate during the Revolution and the British occupation of Philadelphia. After the Revolution, it was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as its first president.[7] Benjamin Rush was another leader, as were many Quakers. John Woolman gave up most of his business in 1756 to devote himself to campaigning against slavery along with other Quakers.[8] The first article published in what later became the United States advocating the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery was written by Thomas Paine. Titled "African Slavery in America", it appeared on March 8, 1775 in the Postscript to the Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser"

Nice piece of research. I didn't know about those guys. The Wikapedia entry is pretty slim, but there is one line that is on point:

"The society asked him [Franklin]to bring the matter of slavery to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which Franklin eventually chose not to do."

Rick

That was from Wikipedia. The whole point of not confronting the slavery issue in 1787 was to create a United States. The Civil War was the delayed result of it. Logically, there should have been two nations right from the start. The American South is STILL predominately reactionary and rascist, and it's still dragging down the North, East, and West with its regressive attitudes.

WPB wrote:

That was from Wikipedia. The whole point of not confronting the slavery issue in 1787 was to create a United States. The Civil War was the delayed result of it. Logically, there should have been two nations right from the start. The American South is STILL predominately reactionary and rascist, and it's still dragging down the North, East, and West with its regressive attitudes.

That is quite a leap of faith to go from one slim Wikapedia entry that does not tell us much at all about the Society, it size, it influence, and what kind of campaign they ran, to a claim that Franklin did not bring up the topic because he was afraid we would not have built a nation if slavery was addressed. As I recall, the membership of the Society was primarily Quaker.

Your logic that we should have had two nations from the get-go escapes me. The Revolutionary War was fought in both the north and the south.

Your contempt for Southerners is stunning. That is true particularly since the South is the high growth area of the country while California, Michigan, Massachusetts, etc. are losing population or significantly trailing the growth rates of the southern states.

Rick

Yeah - and what about the "super" delegates? The electoral college and the super delegates - the founding fathers didn't establish the super delegates.

WPB wrote:

That was from Wikipedia. The whole point of not confronting the slavery issue in 1787 was to create a United States. The Civil War was the delayed result of it. Logically, there should have been two nations right from the start. The American South is STILL predominately reactionary and rascist, and it's still dragging down the North, East, and West with its regressive attitudes.

And your solution is ...? Please offer solution(s)and provide reasons for why your approach will succeed. How much money? Suggestions are more helpful than "presumptions".

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
That is quite a leap of faith to go from one slim Wikapedia entry that does not tell us much at all about the Society, it size, it influence, and what kind of campaign they ran, to a claim that Franklin did not bring up the topic because he was afraid we would not have built a nation if slavery was addressed. As I recall, the membership of the Society was primarily Quaker.
Your logic that we should have had two nations from the get-go escapes me. The Revolutionary War was fought in both the north and the south.
Your contempt for Southerners is stunning. That is true particularly since the South is the high growth area of the country while California, Michigan, Massachusetts, etc. are losing population or significantly trailing the growth rates of the southern states.
Rick

Excellent points, Rick. Thanks for your input. I hope to find out we are all fighting - who ARE we fighting? Each other? I thought all the "enemies" were "over there" ... I am wrong.

Sorry - the fat finger syndrome - what I meant to write is that I hope to find out WHO we are fighting and who ARE we fighting? Each other?
I regret the error.

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
That is quite a leap of faith to go from one slim Wikapedia entry that does not tell us much at all about the Society, it size, it influence, and what kind of campaign they ran, to a claim that Franklin did not bring up the topic because he was afraid we would not have built a nation if slavery was addressed. As I recall, the membership of the Society was primarily Quaker.
Your logic that we should have had two nations from the get-go escapes me. The Revolutionary War was fought in both the north and the south.
Your contempt for Southerners is stunning. That is true particularly since the South is the high growth area of the country while California, Michigan, Massachusetts, etc. are losing population or significantly trailing the growth rates of the southern states.
Rick

Adieu. I've finally accepted the fact that it's an exercise in futility to write exchanges with mules.

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice piece of research. I didn't know about those guys. The Wikapedia entry is pretty slim, but there is one line that is on point:
"The society asked him [Franklin]to bring the matter of slavery to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which Franklin eventually chose not to do."
Rick

Rick, the founders new that slavery was unsavory, immoral and cruel institution. They also knew that ending it would likely lead to splitting the nation. So, they just kicked the can down the road.

Christian Soldier wrote:

<quoted text>
Rick, the founders new that slavery was unsavory, immoral and cruel institution. They also knew that ending it would likely lead to splitting the nation. So, they just kicked the can down the road.

OK, let's review where we are. You and WPB have claimed the electoral college was created to protect slavery in the South. To support your cases, you have offered two brothers from Yale and WPB has offered a Quaker Society out of Philadelphia which opposed slavery. I have countered that brothers have found no support in other scholarship and basically stand alone in their claim. I have also pointed out the the Quaker Society seems to have been limited to Philadelphia. While Franklin was a member of the Society, he declined to raise the issue at the Constitutional Convention.

Now, I have also researched Washington with this Wikapedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washingto...

In reading this article, we find that Washington was moving toward objections to slavery, but he never went public. He did sign legislation to prevent new territories from entering the union as slave states. Jefferson has similar feelings. But, neither you not WPB have offered any evidence that slavery ever came up in discussions of the electoral college, so you have no basis for claiming the electoral college was an attempt by the South to maintain slavery. It would be "kicking the can down the road" if there had been debates, or even discussion, resulting in the electoral College. We have no record of that happening.

But, we do have some record of slavery being discussed, but it revolved around how to count the slaves in the census:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.h...

This was not an electoral college debate. It was a representation debate. In fact, the south wanted to count the slaves as one whole person while the north did not want them counted at all. In the end, they kept the count at 3/5ths just as they had been in the Articles of Confederation.

I repeat, the electoral college was a compromise to prevent the smaller states from being completely overrun by the larger states and applied to states other than southern states.

Now, I am going to claim that this idea of slavery and the electoral college is merely a ploy to rewrite history to support those who want to eliminate the electoral college. Arguing that the electoral college was merely an attempt to protect slavery, is an attempt to deligitimize the electoral college and nothing more. In other words, those who argue the electoral college was created merely to protect slavery actually have the objective of using that argument to bolster their desire for the removal of the electoral college. But, there is no historical support for their position.

Rick

Rick Caird wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, those who argue the electoral college was created merely to protect slavery actually have the objective of using that argument to bolster their desire for the removal of the electoral college. But, there is no historical support for their position.
Rick

Rick,

I've pretty well covered your arguments in support of your "high school" rational for why we have the electoral college.

I also pointed out that the EC is something that can be eliminated tomorrow by the amendment process.

Nonetheless, I really don't see the change coming for elimination for at least two more election cycles because both parties feel they can game the system with it. Also there are a lot of people like yourself who are misinformed about the history and usefulness of this dumb function.

I still don't understand what the problem is with letting one-persons vote equate to any one else's when it comes to voting for the President. It is a central tenet of Democracy and the power of the People to determine our destiny.

Christian Soldier wrote:

<quoted text>
Rick,
I've pretty well covered your arguments in support of your "high school" rational for why we have the electoral college.
I also pointed out that the EC is something that can be eliminated tomorrow by the amendment process.
Nonetheless, I really don't see the change coming for elimination for at least two more election cycles because both parties feel they can game the system with it. Also there are a lot of people like yourself who are misinformed about the history and usefulness of this dumb function.
I still don't understand what the problem is with letting one-persons vote equate to any one else's when it comes to voting for the President. It is a central tenet of Democracy and the power of the People to determine our destiny.

Look, I tore apart your arguments that the electoral college was based on slavery. All you have offered is two brothers whose opinion is unsupported by their colleagues. WPB offered a small society which was unknown outside of Philadelphia and whose thoughts never made it to the Constitutional Convention. That's it. Those are the two bases for your claim. There is no meat there to justify your claim.

Sure the electoral college can be changed via amendment. So can any part of the Constitution. So, in the end all you offer is a lame, unsupported argument that equates the electoral college with slavery and the fact it can be changed via amendment. If my argument is "high school", yours is sophomoric. You get an F in research and support. All you ever offer is some off the wall reference, usually highly partisan. It turns out that if some left winger said something that appeals to you, you believe it. You never seem to go any further. Can you spell gullible?

Rick