Forum: Author Hangout

Hopefully some will finally acknowledge that maybe one modern political party has a definite racists lean.

I keep hoping for the Democrats to abandon their racist roots ever since I became politically active in the 60s. But they haven't. They're in love with the plantation mentality and dependence of a poor class. In the 1800s, the plantations were in the South. Present day, they're in the ghettos of major cities. End result is the same, though. Dependency. And lack of any compassion for the individuals they abuse.

You're right about one party having racist roots and present day identity. You're flat wrong about which one it is. Regardless of the rewrites of history occurring in our institutes of "higher" learning.

ETA: This post supposedly links to Crumbly Writer. However, the quote is from the post of seanski1969 whom this post should link to. Don't know how that happened.

So sad that you miss "the hood" on your head when you look in the mirror.

So sad that you miss "the hood" on your head when you look in the mirror.

It's a little quick for the ad hominem phase of the discussion. Please be patient.

You are correct and my apologies. I'm mad at DB at this time and awaiting a re-index. Not that this is an excuse.

I will remain civil. :)

I keep hoping for the Democrats to abandon their racist roots

And what is it you would have the Democrats to to "abandon their racist roots." On the other hand, what would have the Republicans do for the racist tendencies of the leader of their party today?

And what is it you would have the Democrats to to "abandon their racist roots."

Harkening back to my earlier post, I'd have them give up their policy of keeping black Americans subservient. In the past, they did this on plantations. Present day, they keep them on the Democratic-engineered plantations of inner city ghettos. Both kept them and continue to keep them subservient.

On the other hand, what would have the Republicans do for the racist tendencies of the leader of their party today?

What would those be? Winning the election? You can't demonstrate any official action of the administration that's racist by the true definition of the word. What it comes down to is that the Progressive of today considers any election of not one of theirs as illegitimate. They've gotten so brazen as to attempt a coup d'tat in plain sight, i.e. removing a duly elected President, thus thwarting the will of the people. If successful, the USA as constituted is no more. I'm a helluva more concerned about that than I am any faux racism promulgated by the likes of SJWs or the Democrat shock troops of ANTIFA.

Asserting that today's Democrats are racists but today's Republicans are not - defies logic.

It defies the SJW/Democrat/Progressive narrative, not logic. I think the racism argument stopped being "logical" when persons advocating strong borders were characterized as racist. How can being opposed to an illegal act, i.e. illegal border crossings, be racist? Especially when the vast number crossing are considered Caucasians (Hispanic is definitely not a race). Just boggles the imagination that people can make that statement with a straight face.

the SJW

A term I notice you apply to anybody who disagrees with you.

A term I notice you apply to anybody who disagrees with you.

Kind of like the racist label?

You think racists will disagree with you?

A term I notice you apply to anybody who disagrees with you.

And last I checked, the J in SJW is for "Justice" and the SJW tag itself doesn't identify with any specific racial, ethnic, religious or sexual preference grouping.

So I am unclear as how someone using it as a pejorative term is somehow racist by that alone(conceding that many racists do exactly that). Unless you've been under a rock and thought that J stood for Japanese/Jewish/Javanese or some other identifying group.

However, if you disagree with what THEIR definition of Justice is, you're a racist.

That's the whole point - they are as intolerant, if not more intolerant, of any other opinion, than any other group. Note I used that word OPINION - because they sure as hell don't have their facts straight most of the time.

As a perfect example, the whole 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' myth. The SJW still says that the police acted wrongly. Even though the facts - including both the autopsy AND actual eyewitness accounts conclusively PROVED it was all a lie. To the SJW, facts don't matter because they don't fit the narrative. They seek 'Justice'.

I say they're full of shit and need to grow the fuck up.

Correction: They don't seek "Justice" and they plainly state as such in their (now disfavored) title. Remember, the full form of SJW is "Social Justice Warrior" and the rules for "Social Justice" are different than what is to be found in "plain old justice" because the SJW understands that the system is unfair, and because "the system" is unfair, a "properly just" justice system needs to be skewed in just such a way that it "helps balance" out the inherent unfairness in the rest of the system.

As such "Social Justice" by necessity needs to be unfair, and thus unjust, in order to achieve its goals.

Somehow, the idea that "two wrongs don't make a right"(even if three lefts can) is utterly lost on them. But then, they want change now not later, and fixing it the right way(the fair and just way) would take longer. Because people are suffering in the interim, and allowing suffering makes you a terrible person.

That those unfair and unjust initiatives just further entrench the very issues they seek to remedy is besides the point. That it makes somebody else suffer as well doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is do you care about the plight of these poor disadvantaged minority groups? Only the now matters, 40 years from now can stuff it.

And don't even get into the matter of how inherently racist the idea is that members of certain minority groups are only going to be able to "get ahead" if policies are put in place which put other groups at a distinct disadvantage. After all, the goal is change NOW, not in 40 years. ;)

Edit: Another way to frame things is the SJW & Company crowd seems to view opportunity as essentially a zero-sum game. Which isn't too surprising, given their propensity to also be adherents to the likes of Malthusian thought and either Communism or Socialism.

When your starting point is that proverbial pie is as large as it is ever going to be, things tend to quickly turn bleak from there.

Which is what they would be - the enemy.

Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

I believe doing nothing goes against the American character. There have been enough examples of fascism and other radical totalitarians succeeding in the past 100 years. Russia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Cuba and Venezuela just to name the most recognizable. Ben Franklin pointed out that we have a republic if we can keep it. Hopefully, we have more cojones as a people than the aforementioned failures and will do so.

According to The Urban Dictionary, the original Social Justice Warriors were Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who "sought to bring justice and equality to oppressed groups."
These days, according to Wikipedia, SJW is "a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism ..."
Wikipedia goes on, "In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one."
Maybe that's why I've never heard of the term outside the confines of the SOL forum where some seem to be obsessed by it. I don't use Twitter or other social media sites such as Facebook.

These days, according to Wikipedia, SJW is "a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism ..."
Wikipedia goes on, "In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one."

What triggered the shift in the usage in the 2011 time frame was the advent of what were, in essence, social media lynch-mobs seeking to "destroy" people who came to their attention either through the press, or social media itself. Many of the gleeful #hashtag participants in said events self-described in that manner ("SJW") and is typical with internet denizens in troll mode, many were particularly callous in regards to whether or not they had even targeted the right person.

Needless to say, more conservative information pipelines picked up on the "trending now" meme, and it quickly became became a pejorative aimed back at liberals as they were ready made examples of things being taken too far.

Then AntiFa turned up in the 2016 cycle and went one up on the SJW's.

To the SJW, facts don't matter

I am unfamiliar with what "the SJW" say. I do however, listen to our president. He seems to fit the pattern you describe.

Just as asserting there are no racists Democrats and claiming all Republic

Not aware of anybody who has made that assertion.

Asserting that today's Democrats are racists but today's Republicans are not - defies logic.

I think that there are four groups of people who see racial problems everywhere:
1) The people who are on the receiving end. (With a LOT of "false positives" to be had here)
2) Openly racist persons, who by their nature see everything through that lens.
3) Closeted racists, who like their counterparts regarding anti-porn, anti-gay, anti-a lot of other things find the idea darkly attractive on some level and act out their self-disgust by venting it on others.
4) Opportunists.

How so?

Their policies of social engineering and schooling are proven failures.

Don't even get me started on their perpetuation of Margaret Stangers goals, via abortion.

Instead of keeping blacks on a plantation, they now have them in inner cities and doing their best in keeping them uneducated and encouraging family breakups.

True racism.

Don't even get me started on their perpetuation of Margaret Stangers goals, via abortion.

But hey, it worked! They were completely terrified that Blacks were going to keep on popping out babies until they outnumbered us white folk by sometime around the year 2000. Which is why it was so critical for that "low income assistance" that naturally got the most "bang for the buck" in urban areas where most of the recipients happened to be black, (due to population density, not their race of course) was so time-critical and urgent.

Blacks aren't a majority, they aren't even close to a plurality some 70 years later. Thanks in no small part to the efforts of Planned Parenthood, and some of its founding members who openly spoke of doing just that in the 1940's and early 50's. They simply switched up their messaging in the 1960's after the Civil Rights movement looked to be the winning horse.

Edit to add: If you think I actually support the how/why behind what was done, you fail at reading comprehension.

And what is it you would have the Democrats to to "abandon their racist roots." On the other hand, what would have the Republicans do for the racist tendencies of the leader of their party today?

Still not a Trump fan, but I still haven't seen any strong indication that Trump is actually racist. Most of the statements used to support such claims fall apart once viewed in a larger context.

He's over 70, he is a white male, and a Billionaire to boot, him speaking in a "culturally insensitive manner" as defined by today's 20-somethings is almost to be expected. Particularly given that is part of his "appeal" as it makes come across as more "plain spoken and genuine" even if he is lying through his teeth.

He talks like how most people expect an 70YO entitled white male to speak. Not like the cardboard cutout that is Mitt Romney as a counter-example. (I'd rather have Romney)

All those insensitive comments mean is that he is not particularly sensitive to the particulars of those issues. Lack of sensitivity however, is not to be confused with actual racism. But then I guess we're dealing with definition games at that point.

"Racial insensitivity" now qualifies as racism for many people, so trying to convince them that isn't racist is like asking water to not be wet.

I personally qualify "Racial sensitivty" as an "Ivory Tower Problem" as that goes way beyond even the trite nature of many "first world problems."

Somebody who "doesn't give a fuck" about the labels they use or the language they invoke is a very different issue when compared against someone who actually thinks Jim Crow laws were a good thing.

All evidence points to Trump being "don't care" rather than "I think Jim Crow was great." Apathy does not make a person racist. It can still mean they're a terrible person, but they're a different kind of terrible.

For all his faults, Trump is not a racist. Are there voters who chose him, who are racist, I am sure. But, that does not make him a racist.

If we were to paint him like that, then he would also be Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Hispanic, black, ....

I consider Sharpton and J. Jackson as racist, does that mean HRC is racist?

It depends on what the meaning of is is. (I'd put a little humor icon here if I knew how to make one.)

Congressman Johnson (I believe) had pushed an early 'voting rights act' but it failed.

At the time, Johnson was a senator. The bill he introduced earlier was the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which included voting rights provisions, and it did not fail. It passed. Johnson had words with MLK Jr. over the 1963 Civil Rights Act. MLK wanted stronger voting rights included in the bill. LBJ, a master strategist for Congress, argued for omitting voting rights in the 1963 bill and promised to bring up a separate voting rights bill later. He kept his promise to MLK. The 1965 Voting Rights Act passed in August of that year. It stayed in place, with minor adjustments, until the Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision that made it much more difficult to enforce the law.

A few corrections:

o The South only succeeded because Lincoln was elected, and they anticipated he'd ban slavery—something he only did when he needed to revitalize support for the war in the north.

As I said, 1/2 the South seceded because Lincoln was elected. VA, NC, and others (I think TN) seceded only after Lincoln was inaugurated and called for troops to suppress the secession.

Nobody sensible thought the president could ban slavery. He did it as a war measure, and the Constitutionality of that was in question. Indeed, he banned slavery only in those states and parts of states where the Union was not in control.

o The KKK was first formed in the 1865, but only rose to nationwide prominence with the release of the popular film, Birth of a Nation, which was aired in the White House for President Wilson, who supported racial segregation.

The KKK was quite prominent in the years of the early reconstruction. It became prominent again, and opposed immigrants, Catholics, and Jews as well as blacks, in the 1920s. Wilson's screening of the film might have had something to do with that.

o Congressman Johnson (I believe) had pushed an early 'voting rights act' but it failed. It was only later, after the death of JFK (this part I'm sure of), that he felt he could use the occasion to rally support for equal rights, as he'd been routinely criticized by those supporting MTK Jr. for not supporting them.

I hadn't heard anything about Johnson pushing a voting-rights act before he was president. Remember he was senator from Texas -- and earlier congressman from a section of Texas. He was a NewDealer, but not that left wing while he was in the Senate.

he banned slavery only in those states and parts of states where the Union was not in control

Not exactly different, but more precise: He banned slavery only in those Confederate states, or portions thereof, that had seceded AND where the U.S. military was in control. The political (or maybe legal) judgment was that those areas under military occupation AND who had succeeded, were no longer part of the U.S. and therefore not subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which recognized slavery. I think I once read that Tennessee, which seceded, had rejoined the union by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, and thus was not subject to it.

The political (or maybe legal) judgment was that those areas under military occupation AND who had succeeded, were no longer part of the U.S. and therefore not subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which recognized slavery.

I thought the Civil War was fought because the central government did not recognize the right of individual states to secede. Hence, they were, legally, considered still part of the Union.

Which doesn't speak to your original point. Yes, technically, Lincoln did not have the right to end slavery. However, it was war and he needed to engender support, especially political support as he didn't expect to get reelected. Slavery didn't legally end until ratification of the XIII Amendment.

Yes, technically, Lincoln did not have the right to end slavery. However, it was war and he needed to engender support, especially political support as he didn't expect to get reelected. Slavery didn't legally end until ratification of the XIII Amendment.

That is an interesting opinion, and certainly one that many shard at the time. It was not, however, ever argued before any court. What the President can do as a war measure is a point of debate even today.

That is an interesting opinion, and certainly one that many shard at the time.

Since you're researching the Civil War you undoubtedly know that my response was rather simplistic. There were several reasons for the Emancipation Proclamation. And they were mostly cold-blooded pragmatic.

First, the one I mentioned -- Lincoln keeping political support of Northern Abolitionist -- was important. But not primarily so.

Second was manpower, both North and South. The South was using slaves as labor on military works. This really showed up in the last two years of the war and after Grant took command in the East. Lee was an engineer at heart and loved building defenses. Slaves were a valuable resource in this respect as each slave freed up a soldier to fight. The other side of that coin is that if slaves left the Confederacy, they could be enlisted in the Union Army. Which in fact happened. Over 200,000 black Americans, how many former slaves is unknown, eventually ended up in the Union Army and Navy. That was roughly 10% of all forces. There are some who maintain the North may have lost the war if not for the numbers of black Americans serving, but I think that might be looking through the rose colored glasses of modern political correctness. But it is certain they had a significant impact.

Hollywood has treated these soldiers sympathetically. And rightly so. The movie Glory (where Denzel Washington won one of his Oscars (I still thing Morgan Freeman was jobbed on this one, though)) introduced a lot of people to black sacrifice during that war. But the black slaughter at siege of Petersburg at the end of the war was likely far worse. In any case, black Americans certainly earned their stripes in that war, this for the first time, more than earning a claim for full participation in the life of the country.

Third, it was no secret that Lincoln opposed slavery. After all, he was a Republican. But there is opposition; then there is opposition. While he was opposed, I don't doubt that he just didn't want to rip the institution out of the guts of the South. After all, slaves were the single largest asset class in the country at the time of the Civil War. And Lincoln was likely well aware of what in fact would end up being nationalizing an asset would mean in economic terms to the South. But the exigencies of war likely forced his hand, regardless of what he might or might not have felt when he was first sworn in.

Anyhow, good luck in your research.

Succession from the US had major financial implications. The right to leave the US was one of the issues used to rally soldiers to support the war; slavery was another.

My own view of it is that the Civil War was an amendment to the Constitution. The South maintained they had a right to leave. The North said no you don't.

Next, the South maintained they had a State's Right to slavery. Now it gets a little tricky. Because, taking a strict reading of the Constitution, they were right. So that's why I say the Civil War amended the Constitution. It did so formally after the war with Amendments XIII and XIV and to a lesser extent XV.

I read a book, several years ago, written by a historian at the University of Virginia (I think, though it could have been Virginia Tech), researching whether the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. Southern leaders always maintained it was fought over "states's rights" and not slavery.
I don't remember the name of the book - and I've tried many times. (CRS). But he came up with two conclusions (huge amount of research, including official documents and letters written by soldiers). His conclusion: the leaders in the South, who made the decisions, seceded because of slavery. The soldiers mostly fought, not over slavery, but because Northern soldiers invaded their homeland. At the time, may people, including Robert E. Lee, identified their "country" as their home state, not the United States.

The soldiers mostly fought, not over slavery, but because Northern soldiers invaded their homeland. At the time, may people, including Robert E. Lee, identified their "country" as their home state, not the United States.

Yes and no. Yes, Robert E. Lee fought for the Confederacy because he was a Virginian First, and an American second. Since Virginia refused to raise arms against the Confederacy, and ultimately ended up joining them, Lee followed suit.

However, it should be noted, the South fired the first shots. =P

Seems like educators at universities and colleges have strong opinions about a lot of things and write papers and books to express their opinions. I always question the results these people reach when their research seems to be targeted at proving their opinions.

Thank God people on this forum don't do that

Name one US state government that can prove it represents 100% of the citizens in that state in every action it takes!

Usually REP is accused for his unrealistic demands but you trumped him easily.

Usually REP is accused for his unrealistic demands but you trumped him easily.

Or Lincolned in this case, that was one of Lincoln's positions. That secession did not reflect the interest of everybody in the Confederacy.

Under the US Constitution and it's predecessor documents there are no rights to secede from the union. Nor is there a process for doing so. Thus, when the South Carolina Military fired on Fort Sumter they committed an act of treason by firing on federal troops.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Constitution superceded anything in the Article of Confederation. So said document is irrelevant to this discussion.

That said, the argument was been made that since the Constitution provides Congress the ability to admit new states (Article IV, Sec. 3), it also has the power to release them. In any case, the Constitution does not prohibit a state from leaving if it so chooses. But the Civil War settled that question. Hence, my argument in an earlier post that the Civil War in actuality amended the Constitution even further than Amendments XIII, XIV and XV.

These arguments aren't esoteric fun on a discussion blog but have real day relevance given California's movement to go their own route. Should the proponents succeed in getting the people in that state to agree, it will set up an interesting confrontation with D.C.

One other thing. Article I, Sec. 10 prohibits states from those acts while they're states. Things are different if a state has left with Congress permitting. Then I believe that question would become moot.

I was about to jump in and mention the water issue but fortunately read to the end of your post. Sometimes I'm too impetuous for me own good. :)

Water is key. Without the Colorado River flow, LA can't support it's population. There isn't enough snow runoff to support the state. And I think you've put your finger on another point -- how Nevada and Arizona react. I think you're spot on there.

I think California would last but the standard of living would take a huge hit. Given it's political bent, it would probably have a socialist government ala Venezuela or Cuba or even European style. Those don't work unless large natural resource pools prop them up. And that doesn't always work, e.g. Venezuela.

Tariffs. Big issue. The reason that the United States became so prosperous is because it's a large free trade zone, i.e. no internal tariffs. Zero. Nada. That and abundant natural resources. Europe's Union doesn't even come close though they do have the right idea. But the bureaucracy in Brussels is strangling it.

Another thought. After a period of time, I wonder if the radical environmental attitudes would give way to the need for revenue and energy that offshore oil drilling (California has an ocean of oil off shore) would provide? My guess would be yes. Principles are nice but you can't eat them. Nor convert them to fuel to drive.

Most of California currently gets its water from Nevada and Arizona as part of a few multi-state agreements. If they leave the Union those agreement can be voided and the water turned off.

Most of the people of California could get their drinking water from desalination. It would take a lot of electrical power to do so, but a lot of the river water California imports is used for agriculture. The farmers would have significant problems if California leaves the Union.

Most of the people of California could get their drinking water from desalination. It would take a lot of electrical power to do so, but a lot of the river water California imports is used for agriculture. The farmers would have significant problems if California leaves the Union.

Where are they going to get the power from? They're shutting down their generation because of pressure from radical environmentalists and they now import a significant portion via high voltage transmission. Which is easy to shut off. All it takes is opening a breaker after canceling the purchase contracts.

They gonna do it with windmills and solar? Good luck with that. California needs that water to support such a large population. They'll end up needy if they leave.

the Constitution superceded anything in the Article of Confederation. So said document is irrelevant to this discussion.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1869, ruled that states had no right to secede. In the ruling, the Supreme Court cited the the Articles of Confederation, pointing the point about "perpetual union," and also cited the Preamble to the Constitution, the part about "in order to form a more perfect union." The two, taken together, the court's opinion said (It was a 5-3 vote) meant the perpetuity of the union in the Articles of COnfederation was continued under the U.S. Constitution. If you want to look it up, I believe the case is called Texas vs. White (or vice versa).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1869, ruled that states had no right to secede. In the ruling, the Supreme Court cited the the Articles of Confederation, pointing the point about "perpetual union," and also cited the Preamble to the Constitution, the part about "in order to form a more perfect union." The two, taken together, the court's opinion said (It was a 5-3 vote) meant the perpetuity of the union in the Articles of COnfederation was continued under the U.S. Constitution. If you want to look it up, I believe the case is called Texas vs. White (or vice versa).

I was totally unaware of this case. But reading further, it appears to have spurred some attempts in Congress at that time to assert it's authority in defining who or what is a state. Which never went anywhere.

Maybe relying on this controversy is what is fueling the positions being taken today (can't quote them as I've long forgotten the article) maintaining Congress can approve a state leaving. I don't doubt California is relying on that concept. They certainly can't be considering leaving without permission as the Civil War settled that issue. Although maybe they are.

Although, the 1869 SCOTUS decision notwithstanding, they'll have a tough road to hoe trying to get it.

Except the US Constitution was voted on by all of the citizens directly and not the state governments.

Not True. The US Constitution was passed by the Constitutional Convention and then ratified by the legislatures of the states. It was not a public referendum.

Not True. The US Constitution was passed by the Constitutional Convention and then ratified by the legislatures of the states. It was not a public referendum.

This is for EB. Contrary to a widely accepted belief (even among our own citizens) the US is not a democracy; it is a republic. Ratification by State Legislatures is how Constitutional Amendments are added, not national plebiscites. Nor is the President and Vice-President elected by popular vote. Although that is more widely known by now, I'd guess.

What would have been interesting is the status of a state that did not ratify the constitution back then.

It was ratified by all 13 states back then, though some were quicker than others.

I know, but what would've happened if one state said no? Interesting thought.

Again, from vague memory. I think 9 states had to ratify it for it to succeed. Obviously, if someone rejected it, they wouldn't be participating, i.e. wouldn't be forced. Eventually, all did, even Rhode Island who, if memory serves, did not participate in the Constitutional Convention.

The constitution did allow for founding states to not ratify and thus stay outside, but all joined. However, I do wonder how the USA would've developed if one of the states had not joined the union.

Apologies. I misunderstood your post. Yes, that is an interesting question. Virginia was by far the most populous state at the time and, together with New York, comprised over 25% of the 13 states. So, yes, history may have been far, far different.

One state saying "no" would have made no difference to the others. The provisions for ratification required that at least nine states ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect for those nine states - and any others that ratified it.

@Ernest Bywater

Except the US Constitution was voted on by all of the citizens directly and not the state governments.

Not True. The US Constitution was passed by the Constitutional Convention and then ratified by the legislatures of the states. It was not a public referendum.

Both PotomacBob and Earnest Bywater are wrong.

Just as a national convention separate from the national legislature under the Articles of Confederation was used to draft the proposed constitution, The original states used state level conventions to ratify the constitution.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview/

The original states used state level conventions to ratify the constitution.

But each individual state handled that in it's own manner. Sort of like how states assign Electoral Votes present day. Most are winner take all; some aren't.

But each individual state handled that in it's own manner.

This is true, but none of the original states used a state wide referendum and in no state was the set of ratifying convention delegates the same set of men as the state legislature.

All are winner-take all in one form or another. Forty-eight states and DC award all the electoral college votes to the winner of the state (or district). Maine and Nebraska award winner-take-all by congressional district, with 2 votes awarded in both states to whoever won the state at large.

All are winner-take all in one form or another. Forty-eight states and DC award all the electoral college votes to the winner of the state (or district). Maine and Nebraska award winner-take-all by congressional district, with 2 votes awarded in both states to whoever won the state at large.

In a way, thats true. Every electoral system gets down to vote count at some point along the way. It just depends on how said votes are weighted.

I can imagine a state like mine (Michigan) with far more districts implementing a similar system. It breaks down when the different political divisions have differing voter totals. Which happens no matter how scrupulously boundaries are redrawn after the decennial census if for no other reason than population migration, especially true in fast growing states (or declining) states.

So if the large urban area goes overwhelmingly for one candidate while the outer districts goes for another, vote totals wouldn't match elector assignment. Maybe it would be closer than winner take all, but it still wouldn't match.

In any case, I believe the Constitution is silent on how the states assigns electors, only that the individual legislatures shall do so. So, conceivably, we could see 50 different methods adopted. That would be neat.

Virginia is considering a variation of the approach.

Do you know the details of the Virginia proposal?

Yeah, sounds like an attempt by someone to skew the EC outcome to their favor.

I would only consider that method valid in the event of a plurality winner statewide rather than majority winner. 50%+1 vote (statewide) winner should get the "2 Senate votes" without regard to who won what district.

Amazing how all these problems with the EC only seem to be of importance when Democrats lose ...

Well, the Republicans haven't been on the receiving end of EC reversal of fortunes. The Democrats were getting had by the EC even before there was a Republican Party. (Andrew Jackson's loss the John Quincy Adams, although the EC ultimately didn't decide that outcome, it set the stage)

I sort of like the idea. My choice would be to drop the electoral college and use total national vote instead. Since the electoral college seems to be here to stay, this tends to align the state's electoral votes with the state's popular vote of the primaries.

I DO support breaking apart the EC by congressional districts.

I just don't support the particular flavor cited regarding Virginia. It changes the calculus for Gerrymandering in ways that aren't easily addressed.

If state lines were redrawn every 10 years, I would be game for abolishing the EC. But as state borders are otherwise immune to that particular issue, I am content with leaving that alone.

I DO support breaking apart the EC by congressional districts.

I see a paradox here.

It is in everybody's interest if every state did it, and no state was capable of gaming the system with gerrymanders.

However, it is against the interests of any state to unilaterally change to it from winner-take-all when other states are not doing the same.

Changing to a system of just counting the nationwide vote is potentially disastrous. Imagine what 2000 would have been like if every "hanging chad" in the country had to be recounted! :(

Gerrymandering is an age-old practice that will be practiced in the future for many local reasons. The EC issue doesn't change the 'calculus'. It does give the politicians who are in power another shot at redistricting district boundaries to their advantage.

Yes but the Virginia variant is "problematic" in other ways. Lets use a state with 5 districts/seats available.

They can easily create 1 "safe" district for each party, and have 3 reasonably competitive districts, or 2 "safe" districts each with 1 "competitive" district.... or 3 "safe" districts(however one isn't completely safe), 1 competitive(but leaning the other way), and only 1 district safe for the other party.

With the EC rule in place, the party in power when it comes time to redistrict has every incentive to go 3-1-1 or 3-2. They will never accept 1-3-1 or 2-1-2(although 2-1-2 is never likely to happen anyhow)

It's called National Popular Vote initiative.

The problem with the National Popular Vote Initiative is that the smaller states that opt in to it can back out of it just as easily as they opted in if they don't like the outcome.

To put it bluntly, it's unworkable, because it's ultimately unenforceable.

Legal scholars continue to debate this. Part of the pact is that states that adopt it may pull out, but not within 6 months of the swearing in. Since that's part of the contract between the states it's not at all clear that they could pull out between the election and the electoral college vote. OTOH, it's not absolutely clear that they couldn't.

I wasn't talking about states pulling out between the election and the electoral college vote, but pulling out starting with the next presidential election cycle.

The initiative is worthless if it only lasts one or two election cycles.

I disagree. It's not ideal but one fewer election with the winner not even receiving a plurality is one more election where the will of the people has been kept.

Except when "the will of the people of the great state of ______" was thwarted because of a well intentioned initiative which caused their EC votes to give the election to a person who did NOT win their state's popular vote.

Which is why many people(including myself) say it would likely only last a single election cycle. In many cases, the states EC going against the state popular vote, regardless of impact on the election itself, would probably cause it to be repealed before the next Presidential election.

That's not the only problem.

1. The state cannot control the vote of the elector. An elector might reasonably choose to vote for the candidate preferred by the state's voters over one chosen by the voters of California.

2. How is the popular vote going to be determined? This is also a problem with a national direct election. It is very likely the a direct vote would make elections closer in popular vote. What would be the limit on deciding a recount, and how could that be enforced in all 51 voting jurisdictions, including those not part of the compact?

For example, the popular vote difference in the 2000 election was about .5%. Under any reasonable definition that would call for a recount nationwide. A recount under 51 (or more) different standards. If you thought Bush vs Gore was a nightmare, just imagine this horrorshow.
3. Finally, you have to have the Congress accept the votes of the electors choosen under this system. I can certainly see refuaal of sime members of Congress to vote to accept the electrol votes from their states which went against the popular vote in their states.

Legal scholars continue to debate this.

Assuming it survives a Federal challenge to it's constitutionality (states can't enter into compacts or treaties per Article 1, Sec. 10), it also violates the premise that the actions of a specific legislature cannot compel a future gathering to specific actions. Anyhow, assuming enough states sign it to trigger it, it will be a lively legal slugfest for awhile.

Assuming it survives a Federal challenge to it's constitutionality (states can't enter into compacts or treaties per Article 1, Sec. 10), it also violates the premise that the actions of a specific legislature cannot compel a future gathering to specific actions. Anyhow, assuming enough states sign it to trigger it, it will be a lively legal slugfest for awhile.

States CAN enter into inter-state compacts, there are several around, some IIRC are over 100 years old. What they cannot do is negotiate or ratify treaties with foreign governments, at least, not without the blessing of the State Department and US Senate who would have final say.

hmmm. Interesting. Plain wording of that section is ".... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,....". Depends on whether the Federal courts will go along with an agreement to modify or amend the Constitution by less than a 2/3 majority, or if they will view it as an exercise of State's power authorized there. In any case, there is the 2nd problem that I mentioned. Like I said, if it comes into force, it will definitely be challenged. No prediction on how that will turn out.

ETA: I'm aware of two multi-state agreements: water rights in the Colorado River basin and the Great Lakes Consortium. The latter even includes a foreign government. Both of those, however, were negotiated with Federal government participation. Maybe there are others that didn't involve of
Feds. If so, I'm unaware. But the Feds didn't participate in the National Vote Initiative.

Another point. The two aforementioned agreements don't affect the entire country. Not so with the NVI.

Okay. Does that differ from what I said re: Fed approval being needed? As I said, if passed it's going to Federal court. The legal fireworks will be breathtaking to behold. :)

It's still winner-take all in the congressional district. Right? That would give the party who draws the congressional lines the advantage in the presidential election as well.
Why shouldn't a state's electoral college votes be distributed among the presidential candidates by as (nearly as feasible) as the percentage of the statewide vote each candidate received.
Under that, the Republican presidential candidate would get, say, 35 percent of California's electoral vote (or as nearly as possible to whatever percentage of the statewide vote the GOP candidate got), rather than the zero percent the GOP usually gets now.
In a state with 3 electoral votes, in a 2-way race, a candidate would need to get only about 16.7 percent of the statewide vote to get 1 of the state's 3 electoral votes. To get all the votes (in a 2-way race), a candidate would need to get about 83 percent of the statewide vote.

It's still winner-take all in the congressional district. Right?

Not really in any meaningful sense. Each House (not congressional*) district only has one electoral vote to win, so there is no "all" to win.

*Congress = House of Representatives and the Senate together. Representatives are elected out of population equalized districts. Both senators for a state are elected by state wide vote.

Why shouldn't a state's electoral college votes be distributed among the presidential candidates by as (nearly as feasible) as the percentage of the statewide vote each candidate received.

There is no reason a state couldn't decide to do it that way. However, no state has ever done it that way.

Originally after the switch to voting for presidential tickets rather than individual electors (this happened fairly early) most of the states at the time used the system still in use in Maine and Nebraska.

Strictly speaking, the constitution does not actually require states to hold a presidential election at all.

I'm not sure how the US Supreme Court would judge such a scheme if a state tried this today and it was challenged up to that level given the 14th and some of the other voting rights related amendments, but under the original constitution a state could have had electors selected by the state legislature or appointed by the governor.

Both PotomacBob and Earnest Bywater are wrong.

Ernest, Ernest, Ernest Bywater. I tell you in earnest, there is no a in his first name. So Earnest Bywater IS wrong.

So Earnest Bywater IS wrong.

Oscar gets Wild when his name is mis-spelt too.

He banned slavery only in those Confederate states, or portions thereof, that had seceded AND where the U.S. military was in control.

The political (or maybe legal) judgment was that those areas under military occupation AND who had succeeded, were no longer part of the U.S. and therefore not subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which recognized slavery.

I think I once read that Tennessee, which seceded, had rejoined the union by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, and thus was not subject to it.

Did you mean NOT in control? That would be correct.

The theory that Lincoln followed was that nobody had left the Union and the Constitution prevailed in every state.

Lincoln freed the slaves of those still in revolt as a punitive war measure. He answered some Confederate who proposed reunion -- much later -- on the basis that slaves still under their maters' control would remain slaves that this was something for the Supreme Court to decide. That hardly sounds like he was sure of his ground.

Tennessee was mostly under Confederate military control when the Emancipation Proclamation took effect. Eastern Tennessee -- ironically the most Unionist section -- was not occupied until after Gettysburg.

(I've been reading up on the Civil War because of an alternate-history story I'm writing.)

Eastern Tennessee -- ironically the most Unionist section -- was not occupied until after Gettysburg.

There was no reason for union forces to occupy Eastern Tennessee. It was already pro union. The Eastern counties of Tennessee held a convention, and decided to secede from Tennessee after the Tennessee legislature voted to secede - though a statewide referendum showed a narrow margin for staying in the union. The overwhelming sentiment in Eastern Tennessee (mountainous, few plantations and few slaves) was for staying in the union;in Western Tennessee the vote was for seceding (Mississippi River bottoms, many plantations and many slaves), and Middle Tennessee was pretty evenly split with a small advantage for staying in the union. The governor of Tennessee was pro-secession, and he rammed secession legislation through the state's legislature anyway.

Eisenhower tried to pass a civil rights bill in the 50s and LBJ voted against it.it wasn't til 63 or 64 he saw the light.goldwater voted against the law in 64 because of of section forcing business owners to do something I can't remember what now.but other factors besides racism led to the southern strategy and political shift of the Republican and democratic parties

now.but other factors besides racism led to the southern

Yes but RACISM is one of them

The largest factor is the change in southern demographics due the the mass migration of primarily suburban people from the north and midwest

Eisenhower tried to pass a civil rights bill in the 50s and LBJ voted against it

LBJ was first elected in 1937. For 20 years, he opposed every civil rights bill - then had a change of heart. He spearheaded efforts to pass Civil Rights bills in 1957, 1960 and 1964, and all passed with his support (by then he was Majority Leader in the Senate).

I agree. Although I state it differently - Racism will exist as long as people segregate themselves into racial groups

At which point it will become another form of *-ism. Either determined by religious beliefs, social status, mode of dress, manner of speech, or a number of other factors. (*)

Suffice to say to short form is "They're different from me and mine!" The only real change will be in the criteria used to determine "different."

The only thing the Social Justice Warrior meme served to achieve is to make clear that tribal behavior is alive and well in the developed world, and people have an amazing ability to be blind to their own respective tribal biases. But such is the nature of bias.

(*) It is also worthy of note that many of the identifiers I just listed often get (incorrectly) lumped in with "racism" at present because many of those particular identifying characteristics DO often track with a particular racial/ethnic grouping as populations haven't had sufficient time to intermix.

A person can hate "poor people" (or at least people who present as such) without being particularly racist. However, place them somewhere that the only "poor people" they'll encounter happen to belong to a particular group, and that isn't the conclusion an outside observer, who doesn't have that additional perspective, is likely to draw.

People tend to get butthurt to the extreme when I make that observation. However, their level of butthurt only tells me just how close to the truth that arrow struck.

I've made the same point in blogs more than once and received the castigation you'd normally expect from the less than well informed.

True racism is policies based on race within the law. So, yes, the US was a racist country towards blacks for a while but, obviously, that is not the case any longer. Now we have discrimination for blacks in the form of affirmative action. I wonder if we're ever going to get away from judging people by the color of their skin and not their character (where have I heard that before?). And as far as defining racism nowadays as to what a person feels? Yea, the modern progressive is exceedingly talented, able to read peoples thoughts and feelings by looking at them (/sarc, in case anyone is in doubt).

This progressive fascination with racism has multiple negative consequences, from hampering law enforcement with the concept of "profiling" (something that is used by every other country in the world as it is more efficient) to the misallocation of resources based on the concept (leading to more poverty). But that doesn't matter. We must have Social Justice, eh?

So, yes, the US was a racist country towards blacks for a while but, obviously, that is not the case any longer. Now we have discrimination for blacks in the form of affirmative action.

That is simply not true. We still have effectively lower results for blacks than for whites.

We do have laws requiring that landlords, for example, must NOT discriminate against Blacks. We have laws that prosecutors may NOT bar Blacks from juries. Both those laws are frequently broken.

The KKK was quite prominent in the years of the early reconstruction. It became prominent again, and opposed immigrants, Catholics, and Jews as well as blacks, in the 1920s.

Technically, the reconstruction era KKK and the KKK of the 1920s through the civil rights movement and the modern era are related only by name. The modern KKK is essentially a copycat.

That is simply not true. We still have effectively lower results for blacks than for whites.

And your point is what? That unequal results excuses, or even mandates, discrimination by race? Sorry, discrimination is either wrong or it is not. Which is it?

We do have laws requiring that landlords, for example, must NOT discriminate against Blacks. We have laws that prosecutors may NOT bar Blacks from juries. Both those laws are frequently broken.

So prosecute the criminal. Don't penalize those that haven't broken the law. Which is what government sanctioned discrimination by race does.

Or are you a believer that Caucasians are automatically guilty of "racism" by nature of their color? That's the latest theory du jour, isn't it?

Technically, the reconstruction era KKK and the KKK of the 1920s through the civil rights movement and the modern era are related only by name. The modern KKK is essentially a copycat.

Yeah.
I take their word that they're following in the footsteps of the first Klan.

everyone is a racist

I was taught that a racist, by definition, is someone who believes his or her own race is superior to other races. I don't understand why identifying humans as "any specific group" would make one a racist. Maybe there's a missing link to the logic that argument that I don't understand.

Well said.

I use a personal connotation for those who take all issues into a racist prism. I call them racers.

A racer is any individual whose default argument of cause, is race.

In my mind they are the worst kind of racist. Their actions and demogogory are of no help for actual victims of racism. In fact they often perpetuate the problems.

MLK sought to raise people and standards. Today's racers, Sharpton for instance, are hucksters out to make a buck and could care less about the plight of the people they claim to be the champion of.

Except some of those "southern states" didn't "defect to the Republicans" until the 1990's,(Presidential races are a poor barometer for that metric, you need to look at their Congressional delegations, both Federal and State level. Sure they may have voted Republican for President, but if the statehouse is 70+% Democrat, they haven't truly changed allegiance) which would be about a 30 year time lag in response to the Civil Rights issue, and instead reeks of

1) Generational turnover, not political retribution.

2) The migration of Americans from other parts of the United States(in particular "conservatives" from New England) to the South Eastern United States after the wider availability and reliability of Air Conditioning made living in the very humid South more bearable.

1) Do you see what you're doing?

I cite a specific, dramatic change. I show the clear cause of it.
There was a civil-rights law, and many southern states changed their presidential vote towards an opponent and against a prponent.

You say, "Look aver here. Here is a much more gradual chamge. I can postulate several reasons for it."

Fine. Now postulate another redason for the dramatc change I cite.

2) You blame the government of cities -- which have seen consistent inflow of poor persons and consistent outflow of the better off -- for the remaining of poverty in the cities.

Then you postulate a flow of better-off people to the South East large enough to change the vote from heavily-Democrtic to heavily-Republican. (I think you're exaggerating this, with the possible exception of Florida.)

Look at the povery levels of some Southern states:

. persons Families
USA 13.0 . . 09.5
AL 16.9 . . 13.1
AR 17.9 . . 13.7
FL 12.1 . . 08.6*
GA 14.3 . . 10.7
KY 17.3 . . 13.2
LA 18.6 . . 14.6
MD 08.3 . . 05.4*
MS 20.6 . . 16.3
MO 13.0 . . 09.5=
NC 14.3 . . 10.6
OK 15.9 . . 11.9
SC 15.0 . . 11.2
TN 15.9 . . 12.0
TX 16.3 . . 12.8
VA 09.9 . . 07.1*

Eleven of the 16 have a higher percentage of poverty than the national average.

The influx of the reired better-off and the emigration of the poor have not been enough to mitigate Southern poverty.

If urban poverty is the fault of urban governments, where does the fault lie for southern poverty?

The Electoral College is a complicated thing, and much of its need as it pertains to then vs now is no longer applicable. It can be truthfully argued over whether it's current behavior is intended or not.

Reality is slavery was a primary driving factor in its creation. Without slavery, it may not have happened. After all, the Southern States needed a way to turn non-voting slaves into a means to leverage more power in their ability to select a President.

Conversely, if it ONLY was about slavery, northern States would have sought to abolish it, and they didn't. It also should have come up in The Federalist Papers, among other things, it did not. So "obviously" other reasons existed too.

Such as the founders distrust of voters "being sufficiently informed" to make an intelligent selection for PotUS, which meant that voters(or state governments) instead selected somebody else who was then tasked with the solemn task of "making an informed decision." After all, a lot of voters couldn't read, and they had a substantial number of people living "in the frontier" which didn't always get particularly current(or accurate) information.

And then of course there is the issue of the vote tally itself. As a "States shall determine" item, that left it as a state/states rights issue, federal interests only lay in the electors themselves. If they had gone for direct election, it then made the Presidential ballot a federal issue which by all rights would need federal oversight and administration from the ballot box up to certification of results. Which wasn't something they were up for in the 1790's. Arguably it isn't something most are up for today, even including the people who want to abolish the EC.

Also, part of the reason for the electoral regions for the Congress Members was a similar aspect to allow for low population areas to not be overruled by concentrated city populations. In short, a lot of the system is set up to ensure a geographical leveling as against a result from votes concentrated in a few high population areas.

You're right that the fear was the more populous states would dominate the smaller ones, and the smaller ones were concerned. You mentioned it was the reason for the Electoral College. You're right but it went deeper as it led to the bicameral Congress where one house was determined solely based on being a state and given equal weight regardless of size. So the less populous areas are given equal weight with the more populous areas. In 1790 4 states, slightly less than 1/3 of the 13 states, had 49% of the population. The smaller states were rightly fearful of being dominated by the larger states in a direct democracy.

The bicameral legislature's importance permeates everything, from passing bills to changing the Constitution through Amendment or initiating a new Convention to electing the President and Vice President. The two methods of changing the Constitution require at least 2/3 of the states to go along with changing it. The Electoral College, while requiring only a majority for decision, sets the number of electors from the count of each state's Congressional representatives AND senators. So population has an 80% weight (435 of 535) and the land has 20% (100 of 535).

Today 16 states, slight less than 1/3 ratio at time of the founding, now have 70% of the population. I saw PotomacBob point out, maybe in another thread, that research on Census data indicates that soon it will be 15 states. So the problem of more populous states dominating less populous states is even more severe than at the time of the country's founding.

I'll pose a couple of questions. How much support do you think a Constitutional Amendment for changing the Electoral College will engender? An amendment requiring 2/3 of the individual state legislatures to ratify? Do you think the less populous states will cede that sort of political power to the more populous ones voluntarily? I think not. Same question for the 2nd Amendment which has vast support in the less populous/more numerous states.

Progressives realize this very well. Since their desires can't be implemented through Amendments, or legislation for that matter, then the Constitution itself has to be changed by other means. Hence the notion of a "living Constitution" where issues are decided based on what the judiciary feels how the Constitution should be interpreted in light of modern conditions or judicial philosophy. This is where we can get a Federal judge to nullify a President's Constitutional and Legislatively sanctioned (hence legal) powers based a couple of tweets he made while running for office. Judicial activism at its best. Which, fortunately, SCOTUS overturned while rebuking the judge, somewhat forcefully. I can cite numerous examples but you get the picture.

I think that if you track the rise of the theory of the "Living Constitution" to the rise of the Progressive movement, you will see extremely high correlation. While correlation doesn't imply causation, it sure as hell does work to raise suspicions.

I think that if you track the rise of the theory of the "Living Constitution" to the rise of the Progressive movement, you will see extremely high correlation. While correlation doesn't imply causation, it sure as hell does work to raise suspicions.

It actually is a corruption of an older concept. It is "a living document" because it is capable of change... Through the amendment process.

The language, as per usual with a number of progressive efforts, has been co-opted and subsequently altered to suit the purpose of a different agenda as time has progressed.

Do you think the less populous states will cede that sort of political power to the more populous ones voluntarily? I think not.

I agree - unless some catastrophic event (say a second Civil War) causes a split. Lincoln rammed through three constitutional amendments during the period when most of the Southern states were no longer in the union, and, since Congress can set the terms of admission (or readmission), Lincoln got the northern-dominated Congress to require states, as the price of readmission, to ratify the three amendments to the Constitution. (States can set their own marriage laws. But for Utah to be admitted to the union, Congress required Utah to repeal its laws allowing men to have more than one wife.) If Lincoln had waited until after the Southern states had been readmitted, those constitutional amendments would never have passed both houses of Congress with a sufficient margin to be submitted to the states for consideration.

Lincoln rammed through three constitutional amendments during the period when most of the Southern states were no longer in the union

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. Most of the amendment activity occurred well after his death. The southern states that joined the Confederacy did not actually leave the Union in the view of the Union, but they needed to reorganize governments to send Congressmen and Senators to Washington that the House and Senate would seat. Southern states were not "readmitted" although the elections that produced their representation took time after the war ended.

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. Most of the amendment activity occurred well after his death.

Actually, that was true of the 14th and 15th Amendments, but not the 13th. All of the work, except ratification by the states, was completed before Lincoln's assassination. That one was submitted on Lincoln's approval to the states in February 1865 or two months before his death. Work in Congress on the 14th Amendment started in 1866. I'm not sure when the work on the 15th started but it was ratified in 1870.

The flip side of the issue is the EC gives a small proportion of the American people a higher degree of influence than the per capita average. :(

How about presidential primaries where New Hampshire and Iowa have so much to say about who makes it as a candidate of their party. Who selected them?

One proposal during the Constitutional Convention that wrote the Constitution for submission to the states, called for each state to have 1 electoral vote each.
It is theoretically possible under the current Constitution, for each state to have exactly 3 electoral votes. Congress has the power to set the total number of congressional seats available for distribution among the states, but each state has to get at least one. The Constitution says each state will get the number of electoral votes of its number of senators (2 each) plus the number of those in the House. If Congress set the number of congressional districts nationwide at 50 - then each state would get 1 House seat and 2 Senate seats, giving each state 3 electoral votes.
There is also the situation with the "faithless elector," in which an elector casts his or her electoral college ballot for someone different than he was elected to do. In every instance, so far, where that has happened, the elector's vote counted officially for the "faithless" ballot. Some states forbid that practice by law, and provide penalties, but most states cannot change the constitutional provision that gives the electors the power to cast ballots. In a close election, it might alter the outcome, even though the faithless elector might have to pay the penalty.

It is theoretically possible under the current Constitution, for each state to have exactly 3 electoral votes. Congress has the power to set the total number of congressional seats available for distribution among the states, but each state has to get at least one.

I don't think that would jibe with the Constitutional requirement that Congressional Representatives must be distributed proportional to population among the states.

Congressional Representatives

Social studies fail. Congress = House of Representatives + the Senate.

Social studies fail. Congress = House of Representatives + the Senate.

Right. So you have Congressional Representatives and Congressional Senators. Generally, Congressional is dropped from both. But I agree that the term "Congress" gets thrown around a lot in error.

The general form U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator is also seen. At least those aren't confusing.

So you have Congressional Representatives and Congressional Senators. Generally, Congressional is dropped from both.

No, "Congressional" is never used (at least not correctly) with either Representatives or Senators.