Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump won corn fields and Clinton won economic centers. Good to know.
Funny spin there.
I didn't know the few places that voted for Hillary were all economic centers. While some certainly are, many are economic money pits that are bankrupt or near to it.
Also I didn't realize all this
was nothing more than cornfields.
NEWS FLASH - The Electoral College was designed specifically to prevent a candidate from only going to a handful of population centers in a few states and being able to win the top post in the federal government.
Another words, this
would refuse to be controlled by this
Heck, most of America, even other places that voted for Hillary do not have NYC & LA/SF values. It is a special type of person who thrives in urban hell holes that are devoid of morals, ethics, and decency. I guess the power brokers in those areas are not living within a stones throw of the ghettos where the hapless fools vote for more of the same.
Thus the 30-40 million people living in those three cities hardly reflects what is best for the rest of the country.
NEWS FLASH - The Electoral College was designed specifically to prevent a candidate from only going to a handful of population centers in a few states and being able to win the top post in the federal government.
Yes, I've heard some say that the EC was to prevent the large cities from dominating the Presidential election. They would be wrong.
In 1790 the population of the U.S. was roughly 4 million people, and the ten largest cities were
33,131 - New York, NY
28,522 - Philadelphia, PA
18,320 - Boston, MA
16,359 - Charleston, SC
13,503 - Baltimore, MD
9,913 - Northern Liberties, PA
7,921 - Salem, MA
6,716 - Newport, RI
6,380 - Providence, RI
5,661 - Marblehead, MA
Less than 4% of Americans in 1790 lived in their top 10 cities - the early United States was a very rural place.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution makes no mention as to how the Electors in the various states were to be chosen. Some held state wide elections, some held elections by district or by county, and some states simply had their legislatures select their Electors (which South Carolina did until 1860).
The men at the Constitutional Convention picked the method of assigning Electoral votes by state representation in the federal legislature (the total number of senators and representatives). This allowed states that didn't have full voting rights for all men to still have a significant voice in politics. They also avoided the problem of 'mobocracy' - a direct popular national vote for the President was seen as dangerous, as a foreign power (say Great Britain, France, or Russia) might exert undo influence with the easily swayed ignorant people who, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, made up the bulk of the national population. Voting for President was too important to trust to the People.
Yes, I've heard some say that the EC was to prevent the large cities from dominating the Presidential election. They would be wrong.
In 1790 the population of the U.S. was roughly 4 million people, and the ten largest cities were
33,131 - New York, NY
28,522 - Philadelphia, PA
18,320 - Boston, MA
16,359 - Charleston, SC
13,503 - Baltimore, MD
9,913 - Northern Liberties, PA
7,921 - Salem, MA
6,716 - Newport, RI
6,380 - Providence, RI
5,661 - Marblehead, MA
Less than 4% of Americans in 1790 lived in their top 10 cities - the early United States was a very rural place.
Additionally, the U.S. Constitution makes no mention as to how the Electors in the various states were to be chosen. Some held state wide elections, some held elections by district or by county, and some states simply had their legislatures select their Electors (which South Carolina did until 1860).
The men at the Constitutional Convention picked the method of assigning Electoral votes by state representation in the federal legislature (the total number of senators and representatives). This allowed states that didn't have full voting rights for all men to still have a significant voice in politics. They also avoided the problem of 'mobocracy' - a direct popular national vote for the President was seen as dangerous, as a foreign power (say Great Britain, France, or Russia) might exert undo influence with the easily swayed ignorant people who, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, made up the bulk of the national population. Voting for President was too important to trust to the People.
I agree with some of your post, expect for the part where you marginalize the population base issue. For starters, less than half of registered voters will exercise their civic duty.
In addition to that, while people did live in rural areas, many would travel to listen to debates in the surrounding population centers, provided they were not too far away.
Furthermore candidates would also travel to the various cities around that state, since travel was slow and you may as well go to as many cities while in the state. Thus you could not do what Trump was doing, hitting 5 cities in a one or two day period.
The point being that for the smaller states to agree to be part of a "united" states, they needed assurances that more populace states did not have disproportional power to rule over them just because they had more people. Nothing is a better example of this than the way the Senate is structured, to where the most populace and least populace states have two representatives each. It might not seem fair, but makes total sense.
I find it ironic that liberals (not saying you are one) seem to lack an understanding of not only what our FF's intended, but lack a basic understanding of our constitutional republic. I learned it all in grade school, but a seemingly large number of younger HS grads are not taught the basics of our government/history.
I agree with some of your post, expect for the part where you marginalize the population base issue.
I was addressing the belief that the Founding Fathers established the Presidential election method because they were afraid that large cities would dominate the election. I think that I've made the point that there weren't any large cities in the United States at the time the Constitution was drafted.
Quote:
For starters, less than half of registered voters will exercise their civic duty.
Actually more than half of registered voters exercise their voting rights during Presidential election years:
Back in the late 19th century, election turnout was around 90%. But back then, the nation was more rural and the number of registered voters as a percentage of total population was much lower - women not allowed to vote and black voting was suppressed.
The nation could do more to get the voting numbers up, by allowing early voting, mail-in voting, better and more efficient voting procedures, and even a national holiday on the second Tuesday in November every four years. But there has been a definite effort in this nation to lower voter participation in this country.
Quote:
In addition to that, while people did live in rural areas, many would travel to listen to debates in the surrounding population centers, provided they were not too far away.
Furthermore candidates would also travel to the various cities around that state, since travel was slow and you may as well go to as many cities while in the state. Thus you could not do what Trump was doing, hitting 5 cities in a one or two day period.
Nobody actually went out and campaigned for the presidency - all candidates followed George Washington's example of being the 'mute tribute' who was elevated to the office by admiring Electors.
At first, it was easy to for the Electors to pick a President, because the famous men of the Revolution and of the Constitutional Convention were available for selection. Actual outright politicking for the Presidency started with the Election of 1828, when Martin Van Buren and allies rigorously campaigned for Andrew Jackson candidacy, while Jackson himself stayed at his plantation and kept above the fray.
The first person to actually go out and campaign for the office of the Presidency, as you described above, was Stephen Douglas in 1860. Douglas was slammed by the nation for stooping to campaign, although he did so for non-selfish reasons: he traveled the nation, both North and South, warning of the dangers of secession if the Democratic Party didn't heal its breach and rally behind a single Presidential Candidate.
Quote:
The point being that for the smaller states to agree to be part of a "united" states, they needed assurances that more populace states did not have disproportional power to rule over them just because they had more people. Nothing is a better example of this than the way the Senate is structured, to where the most populace and least populace states have two representatives each. It might not seem fair, but makes total sense.
Ah, the Connecticut Compromise!
There's actually an interesting history of how the Constitutional Convention evolved its methodology for electing the Chief Executive, but might be too long for discussing in this thread. One problem with laying it out is that most people will ignore what I post and continue to repeat claims that simply aren't true.
Quote:
I find it ironic that liberals (not saying you are one) seem to lack an understanding of not only what our FF's intended, but lack a basic understanding of our constitutional republic. I learned it all in grade school, but a seemingly large number of younger HS grads are not taught the basics of our government/history.
Most of my understanding regarding the history of the United States was gained well after high school, when I bought a Kindle and started buying books on American History from 1600 to 1860. The books that I pick tend to be those written by historians, and provide a better and more complete view that was is usually offered at the high school level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
