Slate: The electoral college is an instrument of white supremacy-and sexism

[Cashew]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/11/the_electoral_college_is_an_instrument_of_white_supremacy_and_sexism.html



Dammit. Once again, an idea with popular support across both parties is being poisoned by the sjws. Keep it up and the polls will show support for the electoral college skyrocket among whites.

[Cory]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

A very big part.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

[The_Doctor]

The electoral college isn't why we lost the election...it is, but we also lost a lot of people in the Midwest, Florida, and North Carolina who no longer believe we are the party of economic opportunity and equal values. We have become a special constituency Democratic Party that is quite attached to existing international institutions.

So, no. Facts are facts. Against a reasonable Republican, we would have lost 51-47%. That's the plain reality.

That said, the Electoral College has screwed the Democrats twice. When the Democratic majority comes, making the Electoral College irrelevant will be a major priority. Either through a Constitutional Amendment or enacting the national compact where the popular vote winner wins electoral college votes, thus making the College irrelevant.

They will also do it because it will shift the political gravity away from rural and suburban dominated states to heavy urban areas. That will benefit the new Democratic majority enormously. It will make liberalism a much more palatable ideology if Republicans are forced to worry about the vote out of California and New York, instead of campaigning in Ohio.

[Sumner 1868]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

Is it really? I simply can't believe that people really pay much attention to this stuff.

[muon2]

An irony of the article is that Latino minorities include a significant number of non-citizens who cannot vote. Non-citizens count just as much towards apportionment and citizens. So states with larger non-citizen populations get more electors and hence greater weight in the EC. Technically the EC gives extra weight to states with Latino minorities, though in states like TX they don't have the numbers to control the statewide outcome. Other states like CA, NY and IL benefit from this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

[KingSweden]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

[Person Man]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

This does give us a chance to triangulate without actually having to embrace social conservatism. We need our own version of Cory Gardnerism. We can even talk about how the EC is part of how the elite rig the system against everyday people.

[Soonerdem]

Things like this are part of the reason we lost the election.

[RI]

Slate is a joke.

[JA]

Did anyone actually read the article, or did you just see the words "white supremacy" and start shaking your cane at the screen mumbling "those darn SJWs"?

The article isn't wrong, nor is it asserting that the Electoral College currently intentionally serves the purposes of white supremacy and sexism. All the author is saying is that it was originally designed to empower the proportionally underpopulated slave states of the South by allowing their counting of slaves as 3/5ths a person to enlarge their number of electoral districts and, consequently, electoral votes. In addition, had they not counted women when they were disenfranchised, then they could not have counted them when creating congressional districts and there would have been an incentive to enfranchise women for those states to receive more districts and electoral votes. Today, it continues to privilege white, rural states at the expense of those with large minority populations, thereby resulting in an election like this one where Clinton can win by millions of votes yet still lose. Does anyone mind pointing out how this is so horribly inaccurate?

[Beet]

Did anyone actually read the article, or did you just see the words "white supremacy" and start shaking your cane at the screen mumbling "those darn SJWs"?

The article isn't wrong, nor is it asserting that the Electoral College currently intentionally serves the purposes of white supremacy and sexism. All the author is saying is that it was originally designed to empower the proportionally underpopulated slave states of the South by allowing their counting of slaves as 3/5ths a person to enlarge their number of electoral districts and, consequently, electoral votes. In addition, had they not counted women when they were disenfranchised, then they could not have counted them when creating congressional districts and there would have been an incentive to enfranchise women for those states to receive more districts and electoral votes. Today, it continues to privilege white, rural states at the expense of those with large minority populations, thereby resulting in an election like this one where Clinton can win by millions of votes yet still lose. Does anyone mind pointing out how this is so horribly inaccurate?

It doesn't matter. The simplest argument against it is one man, one vote. That can potentially appeal to anyone. Throwing in stuff like this just needlessly divides us.

[DrScholl]

Because one article online changes EVERYTHING. Some of you really need to grow up.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Because one article online changes EVERYTHING. Some of you really need to grow up.

Yeah.. it's just one article..

[Mercenary]

No, it isn't. It has its flaws to be sure, but some imagined sexism or racism isn't it. Is Wisconsin and Michigan some bastion of racism now since they didn't vote D? It wasn't long that people were saying the democrats had a major advantage in the EC with their blue firewall. While there may be some truth in the criticisms of the EC, there is no reason to mix the nut job rhetoric in.

Anyway If you want to get rid of the EC then you really should fight for proportional representation as a whole since keeping the current system for selecting congress is the same as the EC. You vote for your state's election, it isn't a national election despite how it is portrayed. The popular vote is irrelevant.

[Kingpoleon]

Did anyone actually read the article, or did you just see the words "white supremacy" and start shaking your cane at the screen mumbling "those darn SJWs"?

The article isn't wrong, nor is it asserting that the Electoral College currently intentionally serves the purposes of white supremacy and sexism. All the author is saying is that it was originally designed to empower the proportionally underpopulated slave states of the South by allowing their counting of slaves as 3/5ths a person to enlarge their number of electoral districts and, consequently, electoral votes. In addition, had they not counted women when they were disenfranchised, then they could not have counted them when creating congressional districts and there would have been an incentive to enfranchise women for those states to receive more districts and electoral votes. Today, it continues to privilege white, rural states at the expense of those with large minority populations, thereby resulting in an election like this one where Clinton can win by millions of votes yet still lose. Does anyone mind pointing out how this is so horribly inaccurate?

It doesn't matter. The simplest argument against it is one man, one vote. That can potentially appeal to anyone. Throwing in stuff like this just needlessly divides us.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All the author is saying is that it was originally designed to empower the proportionally underpopulated slave states of the South by allowing their counting of slaves as 3/5ths a person to enlarge their number of electoral districts and, consequently, electoral votes.

Actually it was designed as a special purpose single use Congressional substitute so as to preserve separation of powers.  Even had they wanted to, using a national PV to elect a President in 1787 would have been untenable.  Quite a few states at the time had their legislatures pick the executive.  Had there not been an EC, the President would have been elected by a joint session of Congress every four years.

[Meclazine for Israel]

No.

The electoral college is an instrument of antisemitism and economic prejudice.

I cannot believe people get paid to write this crap.

[Phony Moderate]

The smart move for liberals would be to do their utmost to get it abolished for future elections rather than trying to overturn the result of the one just gone via online petitions and the like. Oh wait...

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Because one article online changes EVERYTHING. Some of you really need to grow up.

Yeah.. it's just one article..

[Kalimantan]

Well, the electoral college does mean that some kinds of people are more important than others when it comes to winning elections. I doubt its white supremacists, but the outcome is certainly unfair

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Well, the electoral college does mean that some kinds of people are more important than others when it comes to winning elections. I doubt its white supremacists, but the outcome is certainly unfair

I don't know if unfair is right word. I'd prefer PV, but it what the rules are, and probably it has its cons and pros.

BTW, did you also complain, when UKIP got basically nada in UK elections because of similar rules?

[Bojack Horseman]

I read stuff like this and can't help but think of that one song from when I was a kid...

♫I know you'd like to think your sh**t don't stink, but lean a little bit closer and see that roses really smell like poo poo♫