The electoral college was specifically created so that voters in major population centers more or less couldn't outweigh the votes of citizens everywhere else. Their argument is asinine.

Not really. It's not hard to imagine that if the election truly were just popular vote that states like NH, IA, ME, and even sparser parts of high pop states like NY and CA would never get time from candidates as they'd focus solely on high population centers.

Remember your US history in that at the time the Constitution was written we had recently just come from a relatively loose confederation of states. And the little states didn't want to be blown off just because they weren't population centers.

Hans Huckibein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The electoral college was specifically created so
> that voters in major population centers more or
> less couldn't outweigh the votes of citizens
> everywhere else. Their argument is asinine.

Nice attempt at revisionist history. The electoral college had nothing to do with "population centers." The electoral college was a response to the issue of slavery.

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

Professor Kingsfield Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans Huckibein Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The electoral college was specifically created
> so
> > that voters in major population centers more or
> > less couldn't outweigh the votes of citizens
> > everywhere else. Their argument is asinine.
>
> Nice attempt at revisionist history. The electoral
> college had nothing to do with "population
> centers." The electoral college was a response to
> the issue of slavery.
>
> http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-
> slavery/


That's incorrect. The college itself obviously did have to do with populations. Slavery was an issue affecting how that was counted. Because the article that you cherry picked concentrates on one aspect doesn't make it the only aspect. There were multiple reasons and it was not simply "a response to slavery."

wbctY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Kingsfield Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hans Huckibein Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The electoral college was specifically
> created
> > so
> > > that voters in major population centers more
> or
> > > less couldn't outweigh the votes of citizens
> > > everywhere else. Their argument is asinine.
> >
> > Nice attempt at revisionist history. The
> electoral
> > college had nothing to do with "population
> > centers." The electoral college was a response
> to
> > the issue of slavery.
> >
> >
> http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-
>
> > slavery/
>
>
> That's incorrect. The college itself obviously
> did have to do with populations. Slavery was an
> issue affecting how that was counted. Because the
> article that you cherry picked concentrates on one
> aspect doesn't make it the only aspect. There
> were multiple reasons and it was not simply "a
> response to slavery."

Not incorrect. Not cherry picked. Written by the most preeminent constitutional scholar in the entire United States, but I guess Trump voters are smarter. LOLZ.

Oh Trumptards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wbctY Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Kingsfield Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hans Huckibein Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The electoral college was specifically
> > created
> > > so
> > > > that voters in major population centers
> more
> > or
> > > > less couldn't outweigh the votes of
> citizens
> > > > everywhere else. Their argument is asinine.
> > >
> > > Nice attempt at revisionist history. The
> > electoral
> > > college had nothing to do with "population
> > > centers." The electoral college was a
> response
> > to
> > > the issue of slavery.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-
>
> >
> > > slavery/
> >
> >
> > That's incorrect. The college itself obviously
> > did have to do with populations. Slavery was
> an
> > issue affecting how that was counted. Because
> the
> > article that you cherry picked concentrates on
> one
> > aspect doesn't make it the only aspect. There
> > were multiple reasons and it was not simply "a
> > response to slavery."
>
> Not incorrect. Not cherry picked. Written by the
> most preeminent constitutional scholar in the
> entire United States, but I guess Trump voters are
> smarter. LOLZ.


Yes, incorrect. Slavery was not a single aspect which defined the basis for an electoral system. There were multiple reasons with population differences being primary. The matter of slaves is a secondary consideration re who and how those within those populations were counted. Yes, obviously cherry picked since it focuses on that aspect which you want to claim. (BTW, it does mention the broader considerations in passing, it's just addressing that in particular in this particular article.) The article and author are fine. Your incorrect interpretation of it as far as slavery being THE reason for the system is what's fucked up.

Libtards!

LoLz!

The Electoral College worked perfectly! It kept a woman who is under active federal investigation, as well as several clouds of scandal over her, OUT of the White House. The Founding Fathers were geniuses!