Originally posted by Surtur
I often wonder how many of the people who are against the EC would be in favor of it if Hillary had lost the popular vote, but still managed to win the election thanks to the EC.
Good news: I don't suffer from TDS and I still think Rank Choice Voting (RCV) is far superior to the EC.
And if Hillary won?
RCV still better.
If RCV was in place, neither Trump nor Hillary would have won.
🙂
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
This was decided during the Civil War.
It was decided during the creation of the US Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were found to be too weak to keep the nascent USA together.
The interests of the nation taking precedence over the states is known as the Supremacy Clause.
The Civil War stuff you're talking about is the "right of succession" or nullification. Madison smacked that down before the Civil War so the debate was already settled. Revolting was the ground for secession from the Southern States due to oppression...of their rights to own and enslave black people. 😐
Originally posted by cdtm
Wrong.It's not, nor was never, about the number of people. The United States of America is just that: A coalition lf independent states, held together by a loose central government.
State rights take precedence, and each state is unto a nation all its own.
If you're talking the Articles of Confederation, yes, you're correct. If you're talking about the US Constitution, no, you're wrong.
You gave a create description of the issues with the Articles of Confederations. Issues that were directly addressed by the US Constitution.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
You find it less disturbing when the majority decides?
If the majority decides on something that removes or oppresses the rights of the minority, this is known as majoritarianism and is a bad thing.
If the minority decides on something that removes or oppresses the rights of the majority, this is known as minoritarianism and is a bad thing.
Optimally, majority decisions should grant more rights or protect rights more securely. Or....decide representation in leadership via RCV.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're talking the Articles of Confederation, yes, you're correct. If you're talking about the US Constitution, no, you're wrong.You gave a create description of the issues with the Articles of Confederations. Issues that were directly addressed by the US Constitution.
Yes, I agree they went too far with the power divide. The intent was still always about state sovereignty. Unfortunately, judge's being only human, have done a lot of "interpreting" on both sides of the aisle.
Either way, the important point is that America is more or less a division of tiny countries. This was true then, and is true to this day, as any foreign visitor will notice if they visit different states and take in the vastly different cultures and social norms/needs.
A majority vote on, say, gun control is simply stupid, since people in New York City and Vermont are nothing alike, in terms of environment, culture, needs, problems, ect..
Originally posted by dadudemon
It was decided during the creation of the US Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were found to be too weak to keep the nascent USA together.The interests of the nation taking precedence over the states is known as the Supremacy Clause.
The Civil War stuff you're talking about is the "right of succession" or nullification. Madison smacked that down before the Civil War so the debate was already settled. Revolting was the ground for secession from the Southern States due to oppression...of their rights to own and enslave black people. 😐
Absolutely.
And it may be offensive to say this, but slavery and economics were linked, so in essence the war was as much about the North attacking the Souths industry, as it was about freeing an enslaved people.
One can argue that attack took prominence over the welfare of people, as high level politics often do.
The issue of slavery had absolutely zero to do with why Lincoln initially chose to invade the south. Lincoln is on record saying that if he could've ended the war without freeing the slaves he would've. It wasn't until the people in the north were getting tired of the costs of the war (in money and lives) that Lincoln decided to conveniently use the moral issue of slavery to get the citizens re-interested in defeating the south. That was the real reason for the Emancipation Proclamation that he issued (which only officially "freed" the slaves in the south, btw; not any of them in loyal union states). Lincoln also had a plan to ship freed slaves back to Africa or Central America and it probably would've been implemented if he had not been assassinated so soon after the war. So slavery was really only an issue when Lincoln conveniently wanted it to be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It was decided during the creation of the US Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were found to be too weak to keep the nascent USA together.The interests of the nation taking precedence over the states is known as the Supremacy Clause.
The Civil War stuff you're talking about is the "right of succession" or nullification. Madison smacked that down before the Civil War so the debate was already settled. Revolting was the ground for secession from the Southern States due to oppression...of their rights to own and enslave black people. 😐
Nice try, but that's a lie. Southerners were not fighting for a right to own slaves. They were fighting for the right to govern themselves. And no, nobody "smacked it down" lol. States do have a legal right to secede I don't give a shit what Madison said.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nice try, but that's a lie. Southerners were not fighting for a right to own slaves. They were fighting for the right to govern themselves. And no, nobody "smacked it down" lol. States do have a legal right to secede I don't give a shit what Madison said.
Breaking News: The American Civil War wasn't about Slavery.
Get the printing presses hot, eThneoLgrRnae has fundamentally changed US History with this breaking new version of History.
Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott vs Sanford, the delicate balance of the 3/4 Compromise? None of those mattered. We really should applaud eThneoLgrRnae for changing History with his new information.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Breaking News: The American Civil War wasn't about Slavery.Get the printing presses hot, eThneoLgrRnae has fundamentally changed US History with this breaking new version of History.
Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott vs Sanford, the delicate balance of the 3/4 Compromise? None of those mattered. We really should applaud eThneoLgrRnae for changing History with his new information.
As an absolute phrase, you're right to call him out.
One could argue the case that, say, gun regulation was never about regulating guns at all. Given that the issue took root after black Americans protested in mass, one could argue gun rights were a facade to disarm black Americans.
Apply this to the civil war, and you have a conflict between the North and South. A conflict full of animus, hatred, and spite. One where freeing slaves just happens to destroy the economy of Southerners, while doing little to the more industrialized North.
Yes, slavery was a major issue of the civil war. I'm not sure it was the "main" issue.
I mean, since when has politics ever put individual human life ahead of "political interests"?
No, he isn't right. He's wrong as you are. And what did he call me out on exactly? Being right? lol Oooookay.
Again, southerners were not fighting to keep slavery. A very tiny percentage of those who lived in the south owned slaves. They were fighting to govern themselves; not because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery but because of the unfair outrageously high tariffs that were being placed on them.
Simply put, the real reasons for the civil war were economic issues, not moral ones.
He's also wrong about states supposedly not having a right to secede.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, he isn't right. He's wrong as you are. And what did he call me out on exactly? Being right? lol Oooookay.Again, southerners were not fighting to keep slavery. A very tiny percentage of those who lived in the south owned slaves. They were fighting to govern themselves; not because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery but because of the unfair outrageously high tariffs that were being placed on them.
Simply put, the real reasons for the civil war were economic issues, not moral ones.
He's also wrong about states supposedly not having a right to secede.
Didn't I say economic issues?
And how much of the southern economy did that small percentage of slave owners produce? If they were major lynch pins in their revenue stream, I don't see how anything I said is wrong.
Even if I realize there was other economic factors outside of slavery, but this doesn't address how slavery was important to the south, and so a viable target for the North.
Originally posted by cdtm
Didn't I say economic issues?And how much of the southern economy did that small percentage of slave owners produce? If they were major lynch pins in their revenue stream, I don't see how anything I said is wrong.
Even if I realize there was other economic factors outside of slavery, but this doesn't address how slavery was important to the south, and so a viable target for the North.
What you're not getting though is that Lincoln had no plans to officially abolish slavery till he decided it was convenient in 1863 after those in the north were getting tired of the costs of the war. Northerners at first thought the war would be over very quickly and that's why they supported it. They didn't realize the resistance the south would put up and how it would drag on for years.
The fact that AL had no intention of abolishing slavery before the war started was not some big secret either. Those in the south knew of his pro-slavery statements he made before war began so why would they feel the need to fight for slavery if Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. No, as I said in previous post, it was the unfair skyrocket-high tariffs that were placed on them that they felt the need to secede and govern themselves.
It had zero to do with keeping slavery.
Originally posted by cdtm
As an absolute phrase, you're right to call him out.One could argue the case that, say, gun regulation was never about regulating guns at all. Given that the issue took root after black Americans protested in mass, one could argue gun rights were a facade to disarm black Americans.
Apply this to the civil war, and you have a conflict between the North and South. A conflict full of animus, hatred, and spite. One where freeing slaves just happens to destroy the economy of Southerners, while doing little to the more industrialized North.
Yes, slavery was a major issue of the civil war. I'm not sure it was the "main" issue.
I mean, since when has politics ever put individual human life ahead of "political interests"?
I made a typo that I cannot correct. It was the 3/5 compromise and I'm very buttmad I cannot edit my post.
Also, I don't know if I can argue against your point because it is more abstract than the actual reason we had a Civil War. The most direct and overt reason was slavery. It truly was. But you're answering the "whys" of slavery.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Again, southerners were not fighting to keep slavery. A very tiny percentage of those who lived in the south owned slaves. They were fighting to govern themselves; not because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery but because of the unfair outrageously high tariffs that were being placed on them.
Yeaaaah, gonna need a citation on that, home-skillet.