this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
679 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2244 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House.

I wasn't saying it was. I was saying it was designed to be representative of the people(also represented by the house) and the states(also represented by the senate).

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises. At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president.

No, you're simply wrong

This video is informative

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not watching a 22 minute video to find whatever bit of information you're pointing to. I'm also not sure you understand the difference between the people and state interests. State interests were represented by the Senate and Senators appointed by the governors.

Having them elect the president is just a king elected by nobles by another name. That's why it was a compromise between the people directly electing the president in a popular election or Congress (as a whole) doing it.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay you can dismiss it, but how about I just show you what the constitution says:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

The electors are determined by the state legislature. Same as what was intended of the senate.

The South Carolina legislature even appointed their electors until 1860

As Wikipedia says:

Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And by 1832 they were the only ones. States go back and forth for the first decade or so and then they all go in on elections.

But that's besides the point. This isn't the Constitution telling us the governors will appoint electors. The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand. That was why the conversation was Congress, the People's will indirectly, or a popular vote directly. Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise. The founding fathers didn't even consider putting an appointment system for electors into the Constitution.

I'm not even sure why you're arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That was why the conversation was Congress, the People’s will indirectly, or a popular vote directly.

Source?

The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand.

But they also knew some states would prefer it and may be reluctant to ratify if a popular vote were required.

Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise.

How is that a compromise? Unless you mean because it gave the states the authority, which yk, is what I said.

I’m not even sure why you’re arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?

You said "At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly."

Which is untrue. And again, the electoral college was intentionally designed to be a middle ground between "popular interest" and "state interest"- you falsely said "You’re thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises."- which is not what I was thinking of.

The number of electors states were given was guaranteed to be 4 + population. The 4 constant was for the same reason as the senate 2 constant, to fairly represent all states, + population was for the same reason as the house- to represent the population of the country as a whole.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The source is cited above. I'm not surprised you've ignored it though. You're clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists. Which is fairly consistent with GOP propaganda about ignoring the will of the people.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

The source is cited above. I’m not surprised you’ve ignored it though.

No I read it. Just forgot since, you know, its been hours.

You’re clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists.

Why would there be some pushing for the president to be nominated by congress?