Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Founding fathers speaking through the Federalist Papers, The Electoral College

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Founding fathers speaking through the Federalist Papers, The Electoral College

    Interesting writings by our founders:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

    Mr Hamilton in The Federalist 68.

    It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
    As originally envisioned the Electors were not to be a rubber stamp it appears.

    Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment
    I must confess I've not read this one before. Seems one of the chief areas the founders wanted the Electors to be concerned about were Foreign intervention into the selection of the President. Very interesting.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

  • #2
    Please stop acting as if the foreign influence was the ONLY thing that knocked Clinton out of the race. Can you quantify to the extent that foreign influence unambiguously led to the election of President-elect Trump? Can you point to any evidence that Russians showed up door to door persuading the voters to vote for Trump? Was it the ONLY thing that affected the voters when taking into consideration over whom to cast their vote for?

    Can you do that? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    I think you and all of us perfectly know the answer to these questions above.

    It's clear enough that you have TDS, but okay, whatever you say.
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
      Please stop acting as if the foreign influence was the ONLY thing that knocked Clinton out of the race. Can you quantify to the extent that foreign influence unambiguously led to the election of President-elect Trump? Can you point to any evidence that Russians showed up door to door persuading the voters to vote for Trump? Was it the ONLY thing that affected the voters when taking into consideration over whom to cast their vote for?

      Can you do that? A simple yes or no will suffice.

      I think you and all of us perfectly know the answer to these questions above.

      It's clear enough that you have TDS, but okay, whatever you say.
      I've never claimed that is the reason she lost, I've stated the opposite thank you. Don't read things that are not written. See you wasted a whole post arguing against a point that I never made and a position that I don't hold.

      Eight years to make up for my man. Get used to it.
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • #4
        How does any of the quotes in the OP apply to Trump? If anything, the revelations about how the DNC operated, and the Clinton Foundation, as well as political donations both above and below the table, apply far more to Hillary Clinton than they do to Trump.

        Hillary has clearly and obviously repeatedly lied under oath about her actions while in a federal office.
        There is amply evidence to seriously question Hillary's motives with foreign leaders and governments.
        It is clear Hillary is willing to participate in cover ups of wrong doing and scandals.
        Hillary clearly violated federal law, rules, and regulations regarding the handling of classified materials and then made light of it.

        I think the American people saw all that, and regardless of the disambiguation of the Democrats, DNC, and vast majority of the MSM, made a rational and conscious decision not to elect her saving the Electoral College the trouble of having to vote into office a candidate that was severely damaged goods with regard to her past actions.

        With Trump, allegations of this sort are nothing more than speculation, and almost entirely if not entirely coming from those who don't want to see Trump in office. That makes the quotes in the OP null and void in his case. Like it or not, he is clearly fit for office whether you agree with his politics or not. Whether he continues to be we shall see once he's in office.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          How does any of the quotes in the OP apply to Trump? If anything, the revelations about how the DNC operated, and the Clinton Foundation, as well as political donations both above and below the table, apply far more to Hillary Clinton than they do to Trump.

          Hillary has clearly and obviously repeatedly lied under oath about her actions while in a federal office.
          There is amply evidence to seriously question Hillary's motives with foreign leaders and governments.

          It is clear Hillary is willing to participate in cover ups of wrong doing and scandals.
          Hillary clearly violated federal law, rules, and regulations regarding the handling of classified materials and then made light of it.

          I think the American people saw all that, and regardless of the disambiguation of the Democrats, DNC, and vast majority of the MSM, made a rational and conscious decision not to elect her saving the Electoral College the trouble of having to vote into office a candidate that was severely damaged goods with regard to her past actions.

          With Trump, allegations of this sort are nothing more than speculation, and almost entirely if not entirely coming from those who don't want to see Trump in office. That makes the quotes in the OP null and void in his case. Like it or not, he is clearly fit for office whether you agree with his politics or not. Whether he continues to be we shall see once he's in office.
          The quotes apply to all elections, not just this one. The reason I posted it is that it quiet clearly implies that the Electoral College was not supposed to be a rubber stamp of the election. Which is a concept that we've lost over the last 225 years.

          Since we have PE Trump, not PE Clinton, it makes more sense to bold the parts that part that is of interests with him, not the part of that would be of interest if we had her.

          By the way, she lost get over her and live in the Present.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            Interesting writings by our founders:

            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

            Mr Hamilton in The Federalist 68.



            As originally envisioned the Electors were not to be a rubber stamp it appears.



            I must confess I've not read this one before. Seems one of the chief areas the founders wanted the Electors to be concerned about were Foreign intervention into the selection of the President. Very interesting.
            The only candidate bought and paid for by foreign powers lost the Electoral Vote.

            The framers rejected a direct popular vote, in part, due to th concerns raised by Hamilton in Federalist #68. The electoral system was initially drawn up by Madison to reflect a balance between the States and the people by using the total number of Senators and Representatives to determine each State's electoral votes. This was a firewall against the formation of a popular monarchy. The framers also made Congress a second firewall behind the Electoral College.

            The manner in which each State awarded its electoral votes was left up to the respective States. 48 States adopted "winner take all" allocations and 2 chose to apportion by congressional district.

            Federalist 10 is also relevant to this, if I remember correctly.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              The quotes apply to all elections, not just this one. The reason I posted it is that it quiet clearly implies that the Electoral College was not supposed to be a rubber stamp of the election. Which is a concept that we've lost over the last 225 years.

              Since we have PE Trump, not PE Clinton, it makes more sense to bold the parts that part that is of interests with him, not the part of that would be of interest if we had her.

              By the way, she lost get over her and live in the Present.
              The Constitution gives the States the power to determine how to select their respective electors.

              48 States award them all to whoever wins a plurality in their respective States. 2 apportion them by congressional district.

              About 17 States have voted to turn their electoral votes into "rubber stamps" of the national popular vote, once States totalling 270 EV's elect to do likewise.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                The Constitution gives the States the power to determine how to select their respective electors.

                48 States award them all to whoever wins a plurality in their respective States. 2 apportion them by congressional district.


                About 17 States have voted to turn their electoral votes into "rubber stamps" of the national popular vote, once States totalling 270 EV's elect to do likewise.
                The first two paragraphs have nothing to do with the subject. Thanks however.

                The last part is immaterial also.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  The quotes apply to all elections, not just this one. The reason I posted it is that it quiet clearly implies that the Electoral College was not supposed to be a rubber stamp of the election. Which is a concept that we've lost over the last 225 years.

                  Since we have PE Trump, not PE Clinton, it makes more sense to bold the parts that part that is of interests with him, not the part of that would be of interest if we had her.

                  By the way, she lost get over her and live in the Present.
                  In my earlier post I was making the argument of "What if Clinton had won?"

                  But, no matter. The bolded portions in your post don't apply to Trump. He has never held federal office or been an elected official before. And, as I previously stated, all anyone has to go on in Trump's case vis-a-vie foreign governments is really speculation.

                  So, it makes the bolded portions irrelevant to Trump at this point.

                  Rubber stamp or not, the Electoral College has no reason not to vote Trump into office as the electors agreed other than that individual ones simply disagree or dislike him. Neither of those are reasons for rejecting him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    The first two paragraphs have nothing to do with the subject. Thanks however.

                    The last part is immaterial also.
                    Ignorance must be blissful.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Ignorance must be blissful.
                      Nope, your post just did not address anything in the thread. You talked about a procedure that is not in effect in the real world and then about how states select their electors, which has nothing to do with my thread.
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        In my earlier post I was making the argument of "What if Clinton had won?"

                        But, no matter. The bolded portions in your post don't apply to Trump. He has never held federal office or been an elected official before. And, as I previously stated, all anyone has to go on in Trump's case vis-a-vie foreign governments is really speculation.

                        So, it makes the bolded portions irrelevant to Trump at this point.

                        Rubber stamp or not, the Electoral College has no reason not to vote Trump into office as the electors agreed other than that individual ones simply disagree or dislike him. Neither of those are reasons for rejecting him.
                        Once again, you'd missed the point completely. Stop focusing on Clinton and Trump.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                          Please stop acting as if the foreign influence was the ONLY thing that knocked Clinton out of the race. Can you quantify to the extent that foreign influence unambiguously led to the election of President-elect Trump? Can you point to any evidence that Russians showed up door to door persuading the voters to vote for Trump? Was it the ONLY thing that affected the voters when taking into consideration over whom to cast their vote for?

                          Can you do that? A simple yes or no will suffice.

                          I think you and all of us perfectly know the answer to these questions above.

                          It's clear enough that you have TDS, but okay, whatever you say.
                          I didn't see any change in attitude among people I've talked to before and after the leaks. The leaks simply confirmed what we all knew all along.

                          Trump's popularity expanded and contracted during the campaign, but Killary's remained constant.
                          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
                            I didn't see any change in attitude among people I've talked to before and after the leaks. The leaks simply confirmed what we all knew all along.

                            Trump's popularity expanded and contracted during the campaign, but Killary's remained constant.
                            I think the most likely effect was to maybe discourage enough people that might have been inclined to hold their nose and vote for her to instead simply stay home.

                            Did it turn the election, I'd say no.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              Once again, you'd missed the point completely. Stop focusing on Clinton and Trump.
                              What's the point of your OP if it isn't applied to current events? An historical footnote? Maybe an academic exercise of no importance?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X