Discussion:
How Has the Electoral College Survived for This Long? White Supremacy.
(too old to reply)
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 13:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of white
supremacy.

By Alexander Keyssar

Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and the
author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”

Aug. 3, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET

As our revived national conversation on race has made clear, the legacies
of slavery and white supremacy run wide and deep in American society and
political life. One such legacy — which is particularly noteworthy in a
presidential election season — has been the survival and preservation of
the Electoral College, an institution that has been under fire for more
than 200 years. Our complicated method of electing presidents has been the
target of recurrent reform attempts since the early 19th century, and the
politics of race and region have figured prominently in their defeat.

It is, of course, no secret that slavery played a role in the original
design of our presidential election system — although historians disagree
about the centrality of that role. The notorious formula that gave states
representation in Congress for three-fifths of their slaves was carried
over into the allocation of electoral votes; the number of electoral votes
granted to each state was (and remains) equivalent to that state’s
representation in both branches of Congress. This constitutional design
gave white Southerners disproportionate influence in the choice of
presidents, an edge that could and did affect the outcome of elections.

Not surprisingly, the slave states strenuously opposed any changes to the
system that would diminish their advantage. In 1816, when a resolution
calling for a national popular vote was introduced in Congress for the
first time, it was derailed by the protestations of Southern senators. The
slaveholding states “would lose the privilege the Constitution now allows
them, of votes upon three-fifths of their population other than freemen,”
objected William Wyatt Bibb of Georgia on the floor of the Senate. “It
would be deeply injurious to them.”

What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition of
slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts to
replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They sometimes
supported other reforms, like the proportional division of each state’s
electoral votes, but those are different strands of a multifaceted tale.)
The reasoning behind this opposition was straightforward, if disturbing.
After Reconstruction, the white “Redeemer” governments that came to power
in Southern states became the political beneficiaries of what amounted to a
“five-fifths” clause: African-Americans counted fully toward representation
(and thus electoral votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite
the formal protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870,
which stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners
consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College
than they had before the Civil War.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy. That is its *only* reason for existing.
--
If you're not reading the New York Times, you're not following the news.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-08-03 13:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of white
supremacy.
Mostly by idiots and dwarves who don't know why we have it.

That would include you, shorty. LOL
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 13:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of white
supremacy.
By Alexander Keyssar
Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and the
author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”
    Aug. 3, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
As our revived national conversation on race has made clear, the legacies
of slavery and white supremacy run wide and deep in American society and
political life. One such legacy — which is particularly noteworthy in a
presidential election season — has been the survival and preservation of
the Electoral College, an institution that has been under fire for more
than 200 years. Our complicated method of electing presidents has been the
target of recurrent reform attempts since the early 19th century, and the
politics of race and region have figured prominently in their defeat.
It is, of course, no secret that slavery played a role in the original
design of our presidential election system — although historians disagree
about the centrality of that role. The notorious formula that gave states
representation in Congress for three-fifths of their slaves was carried
over into the allocation of electoral votes; the number of electoral votes
granted to each state was (and remains) equivalent to that state’s
representation in both branches of Congress. This constitutional design
gave white Southerners disproportionate influence in the choice of
presidents, an edge that could and did affect the outcome of elections.
Not surprisingly, the slave states strenuously opposed any changes to the
system that would diminish their advantage. In 1816, when a resolution
calling for a national popular vote was introduced in Congress for the
first time, it was derailed by the protestations of Southern senators. The
slaveholding states “would lose the privilege the Constitution now allows
them, of votes upon three-fifths of their population other than freemen,”
objected William Wyatt Bibb of Georgia on the floor of the Senate. “It
would be deeply injurious to them.”
What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition of
slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts to
replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They sometimes
supported other reforms, like the proportional division of each state’s
electoral votes, but those are different strands of a multifaceted tale.)
The reasoning behind this opposition was straightforward, if disturbing.
After Reconstruction, the white “Redeemer” governments that came to power
in Southern states became the political beneficiaries of what amounted to a
“five-fifths” clause: African-Americans counted fully toward representation
(and thus electoral votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite
the formal protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870,
which stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners
consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College
than they had before the Civil War.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
More:

By the 1940s, many Southerners also came to believe that their
disproportionate weight in presidential elections, thanks to the
Electoral College, was a critical bulwark against mounting Northern
pressures to enlarge the civil and political rights of African-
Americans. In 1947 Charles Collins’s “Whither Solid South?,” an
influential states’ rights and segregationist treatise, implored
Southerners to repel “any attempt to do away with the College because it
alone can enable the Southern States to preserve their rights within the
Union.” The book, which became must reading among the Dixiecrats who
bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948, was highly praised and freely
distributed by (among others) the Mississippi segregationist James
Eastland, who served in the Senate from 1943 until 1978.

Driven by such convictions, the white supremacist regimes of the South
stood as a roadblock in the path of a national popular vote from the
latter decades of the 19th century into the 1960s, when the Voting
Rights Act and other measures compelled the region to enfranchise
African-Americans. There was, of course, resistance to the idea of a
national vote elsewhere in the country, but it was the South’s well-
known adamance — and the fact that Southern states alone could come
close to blocking a constitutional amendment in Congress — that kept the
idea on the outskirts of public debate for decades. Numerous political
leaders who personally favored a national popular vote, like Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts, a Republican, in the 1940s,
concluded that such a reform had no realistic chance of success, and
they shifted their advocacy to less sweeping measures.

The politics of race and region also figured prominently in the stinging
defeat of a national popular vote amendment in the Senate in 1970 — the
closest that the United States has come to transforming its presidential
election system since 1821. Popular and elite support for the idea had
mushroomed in the 1960s, leading in 1969 to the House of Representatives
voting overwhelmingly in favor of a constitutional amendment that would
have abolished the Electoral College. The proposal then got bogged down
in the Senate during a year when regional tensions were high: two
Southern nominees to the Supreme Court were rejected by the Senate, and
the Voting Rights Act was renewed over the vocal opposition of Southern
senators. Meanwhile, the national popular vote amendment was stalled in
the Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by none other than Senator
Eastland.

Eastland should have been assassinated.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-08-03 14:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Eastland should have been assassinated.
So should you.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 14:43:20 UTC
Permalink
[followups vandalism by shitbag pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of white
supremacy.
By Alexander Keyssar
Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and
the author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”
     Aug. 3, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
As our revived national conversation on race has made clear, the legacies
of slavery and white supremacy run wide and deep in American society and
political life. One such legacy — which is particularly noteworthy in a
presidential election season — has been the survival and preservation of
the Electoral College, an institution that has been under fire for more
than 200 years. Our complicated method of electing presidents has been
the target of recurrent reform attempts since the early 19th century, and
the politics of race and region have figured prominently in their defeat.
It is, of course, no secret that slavery played a role in the original
design of our presidential election system — although historians disagree
about the centrality of that role. The notorious formula that gave states
representation in Congress for three-fifths of their slaves was carried
over into the allocation of electoral votes; the number of electoral
votes granted to each state was (and remains) equivalent to that state’s
representation in both branches of Congress. This constitutional design
gave white Southerners disproportionate influence in the choice of
presidents, an edge that could and did affect the outcome of elections.
Not surprisingly, the slave states strenuously opposed any changes to the
system that would diminish their advantage. In 1816, when a resolution
calling for a national popular vote was introduced in Congress for the
first time, it was derailed by the protestations of Southern senators.
The slaveholding states “would lose the privilege the Constitution now
allows them, of votes upon three-fifths of their population other than
freemen,” objected William Wyatt Bibb of Georgia on the floor of the
Senate. “It would be deeply injurious to them.”
What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition
of slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts
to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They
sometimes supported other reforms, like the proportional division of each
state’s electoral votes, but those are different strands of a
multifaceted tale.) The reasoning behind this opposition was
straightforward, if disturbing. After Reconstruction, the white
“Redeemer” governments that came to power in Southern states became the
African-Americans counted fully toward representation (and thus electoral
votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite the formal
protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, which
stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners
consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College
than they had before the Civil War.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy.  That is its *only* reason for existing.
You are aware that the New York Times has zero credibility.
No, and you're not aware of it either, because what you said is a lie.
Every word this expert historian has stated, particularly about *all* the
opposition to abolition coming from southern white supremacists, is spot-on
correct.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 14:54:47 UTC
Permalink
[followups vandalism by shitbag pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of white
supremacy.
By Alexander Keyssar
Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and
the author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”
[...]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy.  That is its *only* reason for existing.
You are aware that
I'm aware that you didn't refute a single point made by Professor Keyssar,
and that you couldn't refute any part of it if you spent the next 15 years
on it.

I'm aware that you are 100% wrong about the electoral college. I'm aware
that you don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about on any topic.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 16:47:32 UTC
Permalink
[followups vandalism by shitbag pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
[followups vandalism by shitbag pastor-to-the-KKK repaired]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of
white supremacy.
By Alexander Keyssar
Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and
the author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”
[...]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy.  That is its *only* reason for existing.
You are aware that
I'm aware that you didn't refute a single point made by Professor
Keyssar, and that you couldn't refute any part of it if you spent the
next 15 years on it.
That is because his positions have been refuted in this forum
No, not a single time. Not even close.

One of his points has never even been addressed in "this forum" before, let
alone refuted. That point is that southern white supremacists - you and
your ancestors - supported the electoral college even more fervently after
the end of slavery, because now black counted fully for apportionment, not
merely 3/5, but by suppressing their votes, you obtained even more
electoral power than before.

Another point that has never been refuted here - because it has never been
seen here - was that James Eastland, who should have been assassinated,
prevented an amendment to repeal the electoral college from even coming to
a vote.

No, no one has ever refuted a single one of Professor Keyssar's points.
The electoral college was and is only about white supremacy. That, and
that alone, explains most opposition to its abolition.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 15:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of
white supremacy.
By Alexander Keyssar
Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and
the author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”
    Aug. 3, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
As our revived national conversation on race has made clear, the
legacies of slavery and white supremacy run wide and deep in American
society and political life. One such legacy — which is particularly
noteworthy in a presidential election season — has been the survival and
preservation of the Electoral College, an institution that has been
under fire for more than 200 years. Our complicated method of electing
presidents has been the target of recurrent reform attempts since the
early 19th century, and the politics of race and region have figured
prominently in their defeat.
It is, of course, no secret that slavery played a role in the original
design of our presidential election system — although historians
disagree about the centrality of that role. The notorious formula that
gave states representation in Congress for three-fifths of their slaves
was carried over into the allocation of electoral votes; the number of
electoral votes granted to each state was (and remains) equivalent to
that state’s representation in both branches of Congress. This
constitutional design gave white Southerners disproportionate influence
in the choice of presidents, an edge that could and did affect the
outcome of elections.
Not surprisingly, the slave states strenuously opposed any changes to
the system that would diminish their advantage. In 1816, when a
resolution calling for a national popular vote was introduced in
Congress for the first time, it was derailed by the protestations of
Southern senators. The slaveholding states “would lose the privilege the
Constitution now allows them, of votes upon three-fifths of their
population other than freemen,” objected William Wyatt Bibb of Georgia
on the floor of the Senate. “It would be deeply injurious to them.”
What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition
of slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts
to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They
sometimes supported other reforms, like the proportional division of
each state’s electoral votes, but those are different strands of a
multifaceted tale.) The reasoning behind this opposition was
straightforward, if disturbing. After Reconstruction, the white
“Redeemer” governments that came to power in Southern states became the
African-Americans counted fully toward representation (and thus
electoral votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite the
formal protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870,
which stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners
consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College
than they had before the Civil War.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy.  That is its *only* reason for existing.
You are aware that the New York Times has zero credibility. and the
comments by this historian indite that his opinion ignores critical fact.
You are aware that you have quintuple zero credibility and the comments by this historian indite(?) [correction for the Alzheimer's victim: 'indicate'] that his opinion is based on critical fact. He's a historian, he's not going to discredit his status as a historian by not being factual. But you're not a historian, or much of anything else, which explains why all your opinions, including the one expressed here, about anything are fact-free, with you having admitted that about your opinions yourself just the other day.
Hartung has zero expertise in anything and zero credibility. He is a liar
at every turn.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-03 20:52:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 09:06:02 -0500, David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy.  That is its *only* reason for existing.
You are aware that the New York Times has zero credibility. and the
comments by this historian indite that his opinion ignores critical fact.
Put another way, once again you have posted trash.
Let the lefrtist morons beat on that dead horse. The EC is not going
away anytime soon...  maybe never...
Since an amendment requires a two thirds vote in each house of the
Congress
The amendment in 1970 passed the house by more than that, and it would have
passed the senate by that much if Eastland, who should have been
assassinated, had not blocked it coming to a vote.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-08-03 23:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
The amendment in 1970 passed the house by more than that, and it would have
passed the senate
Woulda... shoulda.... coulda....

LOL

It's sure fun to watch you get all foamy over this.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-04 19:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 09:06:02 -0500, David Hartung
Post by Rudy Canoza
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy.  That is its *only* reason for existing.
You are aware that the New York Times has zero credibility. and the
comments by this historian indite that his opinion ignores critical fact.
Put another way, once again you have posted trash.
Let the lefrtist morons beat on that dead horse. The EC is not going
away anytime soon...  maybe never...
Since an amendment requires a two thirds vote in each house of the Congress
The amendment in 1970 passed the house by more than that, and it would
have passed the senate by that much if Eastland, who should have been
assassinated, had not blocked it coming to a vote.
There are several problems here.
1. Even had the amendment passed both houses of of Congress, it would have
still required the approval of 38 states
It would have been.
2. Despite your claim that the Electoral College was developed for racist
reasons, the NAACP concluded that they had more to lose by it abolition
than by its retention.
They were wrong. The electoral college gave the slaver states even *more*
unwarranted electoral strength after the end of slavery, when the slaver
states got even more representation...for whites only, because they
prevented blacks from voting.
3. It was Thurmond and not Eastland who spearheaded the filibuster.
Yes, but Eastland bottled it up in committee with no justification, and
Thurmond was another white supremacist like Eastland and you.

There is no doubt that the strongest, most strident and vociferous support
for the electoral college comes from white supremacists like you, and we
understand very clearly why.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-05 04:46:38 UTC
Permalink
4. (And far from least) You have publicly taken the position that it is
acceptable to assassinate someone for holding the "wrong" political position.
No; for working to promote and protect true evil. Eastland, Thurmond and
all the other southern white supremacists were deeply evil men, and they
should have been assassinated. It would have been supremely patriotic to
do so.
Rudy Canoza
2020-08-05 15:02:11 UTC
Permalink
4. (And far from least) You have publicly taken the position that it is
acceptable to assassinate someone for holding the "wrong" political position.
No; for working to promote and protect true evil.  Eastland, Thurmond and
all the other southern white supremacists were deeply evil men, and they
should have been assassinated.  It would have been supremely patriotic to
do so.
So two wrongs do make a right?
I just instructed you on this a few moments ago; are you stupid? (Yes.)

Whenever Hartung starts with "So..." for a question, what he is doing is
committing the straw man fallacy. It's a shortened form of "So what
you're saying is...", and of course it is never what the other person is
saying - it is a straw man, 100% of the time.

Prof. Rudy Canoza - 05 Aug 2020

Eliminating someone who is an agent of pure evil, like Adolph Hitler or
Nathaniel Bedford Forrest or James Eastland or Strom Thurmond, is not a wrong.
SortingItOut
2020-08-04 05:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Resistance to eliminating it has long been connected to the idea of white
supremacy.
By Alexander Keyssar
Mr. Keyssar is a professor of history and social policy at Harvard and the
author of “Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?”
Aug. 3, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET
As our revived national conversation on race has made clear, the legacies
of slavery and white supremacy run wide and deep in American society and
political life. One such legacy — which is particularly noteworthy in a
presidential election season — has been the survival and preservation of
the Electoral College, an institution that has been under fire for more
than 200 years. Our complicated method of electing presidents has been the
target of recurrent reform attempts since the early 19th century, and the
politics of race and region have figured prominently in their defeat.
It is, of course, no secret that slavery played a role in the original
design of our presidential election system — although historians disagree
about the centrality of that role. The notorious formula that gave states
representation in Congress for three-fifths of their slaves was carried
over into the allocation of electoral votes; the number of electoral votes
granted to each state was (and remains) equivalent to that state’s
representation in both branches of Congress. This constitutional design
gave white Southerners disproportionate influence in the choice of
presidents, an edge that could and did affect the outcome of elections.
Not surprisingly, the slave states strenuously opposed any changes to the
system that would diminish their advantage. In 1816, when a resolution
calling for a national popular vote was introduced in Congress for the
first time, it was derailed by the protestations of Southern senators. The
slaveholding states “would lose the privilege the Constitution now allows
them, of votes upon three-fifths of their population other than freemen,”
objected William Wyatt Bibb of Georgia on the floor of the Senate. “It
would be deeply injurious to them.”
What is far less known, or recognized, is that long after the abolition of
slavery, Southern political leaders continued to resist any attempts to
replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. (They sometimes
supported other reforms, like the proportional division of each state’s
electoral votes, but those are different strands of a multifaceted tale.)
The reasoning behind this opposition was straightforward, if disturbing.
After Reconstruction, the white “Redeemer” governments that came to power
in Southern states became the political beneficiaries of what amounted to a
“five-fifths” clause: African-Americans counted fully toward representation
(and thus electoral votes), but they were again disenfranchised — despite
the formal protections outlined in the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870,
which stated that the right to vote could not be denied “on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” White Southerners
consequently derived an even greater benefit from the Electoral College
than they had before the Civil War.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/opinion/electoral-college-racism-white-supremacy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The electoral college was at the outset and is to this day about white
supremacy. That is its *only* reason for existing.
--
If you're not reading the New York Times, you're not following the news.
Logical fallacy. One state's or one region's reason for wanting the EC is not necessarily why it exists. If one or more states leverage the EC with their own F'd up election politics that has nothing to do with why it exists or why it makes sense to keep it.

Try again.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-08-04 19:16:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 06:34:30 -0700, Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Poor Rudy.

It sucks being an overweight, cross-dressing dwarf. But it must suck
ever more to be suffering in the terminal stages of Trump Derangement
Syndrome and be an overweight, cross-dressing dwarf.

The National Affairs web site offers this treatise supporting America,
The Constitution, and the Electoral College.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college

It destroys Rudy's bleating about slavery and his belief that we're a
democracy. Rudy knows this is settled.
Loading...