Re: Why the electoral college is manifestly and obviously wrong and unjust

Attila <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]: 

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:47:54 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> <[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>Attila <[email protected]> wrote in 
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 13:04:56 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>> <[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Attila <[email protected]> wrote in 
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 01:39:32 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> <[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>Attila <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>news:[email protected]: 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 14:47:34 -0400, Ted
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:12:10 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 8/9/2026 7:07 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]: 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There are 15 low population red shithole states with a
>>>>>>>>>>> combined population of a little over 39 million, roughly
>>>>>>>>>>> matching California's 39 million. They are Alabama, Alaska,
>>>>>>>>>>> Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
>>>>>>>>>>> Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West
>>>>>>>>>>> Virginia, and Wyoming. These states have 48 representatives
>>>>>>>>>>> to the House, and 
>>>>30
>>>>>>>>>>> senators, giving them 78 total electoral votes. California
>>>>>>>>>>> has 
>>54
>>>>>>>>>>> electoral votes, for its 52 representatives and two
>>>>>>>>>>> senators. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should the voters in these 15 red shithole states have
>>>>>>>>>>> more say – not just more say, but almost 50% more – in
>>>>>>>>>>> electing the president than the equal number of voters in
>>>>>>>>>>> California? In 
>>what
>>>>>>>>>>> possible universe is that a just outcome? It is not a just 
>>>>outcome
>>>>>>>>>>> in ANY universe at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, if we elected the president on a popular vote,
>>>>>>>>>>> those 
>>15
>>>>>>>>>>> red shithole states would still provide more votes for the
>>>>>>>>>>> Republiscum/QAnon candidate than California does for the
>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic (not "Democrat") candidate. Harris won California
>>with
>>>>>>>>>>> about 58.5% of the vote. Trump won the majority of those 15
>>>>>>>>>>> red shithole states with more than 60%; more than 70% in
>>>>>>>>>>> Wyoming 
>>and
>>>>>>>>>>> West Virginia. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>     Actually I agree with Trump,
>>>>>>>>>> the EC is a vestige of slavery
>>>>>>>>>> and needs to be abolished.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Of course it's a vestige of slavery. Paul Finkelman showed that
>>>>>>>>>conclusively. "The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College"
>>>>>>>>>https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2804
>>>>&context=c
>>>>>>>>>lr 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Exactly.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It insures the country is not run by the population centers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why don't states use an EC to 
>>>>>>keep one large city from dominating 
>>>>>>statewide politics?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because the less populated states did not want to be
>>>>> dominated by the more populated states.  Our system gives
>>>>> rights to minorities and protects those rights, otherwise
>>>>> the majority could always do as it wished.  Without the EC
>>>>> the country would always be dominated by a handful of states
>>>>> with large population centers and the rest of the country
>>>>> would just be ignored.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With the EC the entire country must be considered in every
>>>>> action.  That is why we have two houses of Congress - the
>>>>> House that is populated according to numbers alone and the
>>>>> Senate which insures the remainder of the country is not
>>>>> permanently ignored.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Funny that all elections in the US are 
>>>>determined by popular vote EXCEPT the president. 
>>>>
>>>>    Why is that?
>>> 
>>> Easy.  Every other election is a regional election.
>>> President is the only national election.
>>> 
>>> Each region elects it's own representative and the major
>>> population centers cannot dictate who the governor,
>>> Senators, or Representatives are for smaller states,
>>> Everyone has a voice.
>>> 
>>> We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
>>> It was planned to be that way.
>>
>>   
>>  If representative democracy is 
>>so perfect why do states have 
>>ballot initiatives where the voters
>>can vote on laws instead of just
>>people?
> 
> The procedures vary from state to state but usually a
> petition approved by a certain number of registered voters
> is required.  Then the measure can be placed on the ballot.
> 
> These are local or statewide measures and not national.  The
> states have a lot more power to decide their internal
> operations than the nation does.  The two issues are
> separate.
> 
> I never said it is perfect.  It is just better than anything
> else that has been tried as far as personal freedoms are
> concerned.
> 
>>>>
>>>>The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
>>>>November 10, 2016
>>>>
>>>>At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary 
>>>>Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct 
>>>>national election of the president. But the 
>>>>savvy Virginian James Madison responded that 
>>>>such a system would prove unacceptable to the 
>>>>South: "The right of suffrage was much more 
>>>>diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern 
>>>>than the Southern States; and the latter could 
>>>>have no influence in the election on the score 
>>>>of Negroes." In other words, in a direct 
>>>>election system, the North would outnumber the 
>>>>South, whose many slaves (more than half a 
>>>>million in all) of course could not vote. But 
>>>>the Electoral College—a prototype of which 
>>>>Madison proposed in this same speech—instead 
>>>>let each southern state count its slaves, 
>>>>albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing 
>>>>its share of the overall count.
>>>>
>>>>After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of 
>>>>Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than 
>>>>Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. 
>>>>Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any 
>>>>other slave state) bought or bred, the more 
>>>>electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave 
>>>>state to free any blacks who then moved North, 
>>>>the state could actually lose electoral votes.
>>>>
>>>>If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not 
>>>>overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution 
>>>>was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of 
>>>>the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white 
>>>>slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/o2vbjdn
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Remember at the time the Constitution was written smaller
>>> states were all southern and agricultural.  Today a lot of
>>> western states fit that description of being smaller in
>>> population.
>>> 
>>
>>   As the above article shows, 
>>it was not about small vs big
>>states, it was about skewing an
>>advantage to slavery states. 
> 
> Who were the small population states at the time.  Remember
> the country was a lot smaller then than it is now.
> 
> You seem to find a slave under every rock and you clearly
> despise anything that is southern.
> 

     The Constitution itself says 
the EC exists because of slavery.


> 
>>Vermont and Rhode Island were 
>>small but didn't demand an EC,
>>it was Virginia and the Carolinas
>>that feared a direct elections. 
>>Because they wanted a slavery
>>advantage. 
>>
>>   Trump is right, get rid of (or at
>>least bypass) the EC. 
>>
> 
> He is wrong on this one.  But the EC is a constitutional
> requirement so his opinion is moot.


    The EC is in the constitution, as is
blacks being three fifths of person. Neither
have any relevance today.