The Electoral College as it relates to the Rules of Major League Baseball.
08-10-2019, 08:49 AM
#21
You’re correct. Sorry for the word choice but the outcome was the same.
The North didn’t want them counted at all because, at the time, they were treated as assets not as people. The South wanted them counted not because they were going to be voters but because they would raise the number of representatives in the Congress and the resulting political power. The slave owners never intended for them to be afforded any rights as voters. The 3/5th was a compromise as you said for political purposes.
So, my point was, and still is, as changes happen to our voting system why shouldn’t the Electoral College change with it? We’ve added articles to the Constitution from time to time.
The North didn’t want them counted at all because, at the time, they were treated as assets not as people. The South wanted them counted not because they were going to be voters but because they would raise the number of representatives in the Congress and the resulting political power. The slave owners never intended for them to be afforded any rights as voters. The 3/5th was a compromise as you said for political purposes.
So, my point was, and still is, as changes happen to our voting system why shouldn’t the Electoral College change with it? We’ve added articles to the Constitution from time to time.
Reply
0
0
08-10-2019, 09:12 AM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,206
Total Cats: 98
If the basic text/meaning of the Constitution is not appealing to someone, they should move to a place that has a set of laws that are more appealing, rather than trying to change the fabric of my Country. I believe some things in the Constitution should not change, or be changed, such as the function of the Electoral College. For example, I believe the Second Amendment is the only one where it says "shall not be infringed". Anybody who wants to take away my Second Amendment rights is therefore an enemy of the Constitution and should be treated as such. Anyone wanting to get rid of the Electoral College is essentially advocating for a pure democracy, rather than a constitutional republic, and is also, in my mind, an enemy of the Constitution.
Reply
-1
-1
08-10-2019, 09:27 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 790
Total Cats: 188
^ you are aware that the things you’re all riled up about are constitutional Amendments, right? As in, they weren’t there to begin with. Turns out the Constitution can be, and has been, revised periodically through a legislative process for the good of the people. I’ve also found that people who are strict constitutionalists on certain amendments like the 2nd aren’t usually as psyched about other ones like 13-15. Weird... it reminds me of strict biblical literalists who take the King James Bible, or the Book of Mormon, as the literal word of God.
Anyway, the electoral college is an antiquated historical relic that is contrived to favor certain votes over certain others, and is subject to manipulation of the worst kind. However, until and unless our legislators figure out how to get out of their own way and do something useful for a change, the electoral college is the law of the land. The baseball* analogy is apt- complain about the rules all you want, but they are the rules and you need to play by them. There’s no crying in baseball, and there should be no crying in elections**. If our president is going to be chosen by a bunch of toothless hayseeds in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania***, then you need to figure out how to win votes in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania.
* Baseball is also an antiquated historical relic, which is why nobody watches it any more.
** Everyone IS inherently biased and unfair, it’s in the machine code for humans. Science is the premise that groups of people can overcome the inherent weaknesses of individuals if we do things the right way.
*** of note: the author is descended from a long and distinguished line of toothless hayseeds in Ohio and Pennsylvania, almost all of whom vote Republican even though they voted Democrat 30 years ago. The author worked very hard to obtain the social mobility required to not live in such a place.
Anyway, the electoral college is an antiquated historical relic that is contrived to favor certain votes over certain others, and is subject to manipulation of the worst kind. However, until and unless our legislators figure out how to get out of their own way and do something useful for a change, the electoral college is the law of the land. The baseball* analogy is apt- complain about the rules all you want, but they are the rules and you need to play by them. There’s no crying in baseball, and there should be no crying in elections**. If our president is going to be chosen by a bunch of toothless hayseeds in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania***, then you need to figure out how to win votes in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania.
* Baseball is also an antiquated historical relic, which is why nobody watches it any more.
** Everyone IS inherently biased and unfair, it’s in the machine code for humans. Science is the premise that groups of people can overcome the inherent weaknesses of individuals if we do things the right way.
*** of note: the author is descended from a long and distinguished line of toothless hayseeds in Ohio and Pennsylvania, almost all of whom vote Republican even though they voted Democrat 30 years ago. The author worked very hard to obtain the social mobility required to not live in such a place.
Last edited by Schroedinger; 08-10-2019 at 10:06 AM.
Reply
-1
-1
08-10-2019, 09:43 AM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,206
Total Cats: 98
I believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were products of the same founding fathers. They should be left alone. The rest of the amendments came later. I heard some near illiterate democrat say something like "the founding fathers wrote the 14th Amendment, and therefore anchor babies are constitutional". What a maroon. I tend to agree with you about some of the later amendments--the 14th served its purpose and should be removed. I'm also glad they repealed prohibition...
Last edited by poormxdad; 08-10-2019 at 09:56 AM.
Reply
-2
-2
08-10-2019, 10:45 AM
#27
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,664
Total Cats: 3,013
I don't need a National Endowment of the Arts, Housing and Urban Development, or our military in Yemen, yet here we are.
Reply
0
0
08-10-2019, 01:34 PM
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 145
Total Cats: 14
Did you miss the part in the first post which said "Let us suppose that in some hypothetical universe, the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians..."? The numbers were adjusted to fit the narrative.
EDIT: Also, not sure if you're trolling here. It's impossible to win five games in the MLB World Series. It may be that I'm ignorant enough about baseball to miss some subtle joke here. I'm good at making sure that baseball gets on TV. Not so much at being the sort of person who understands the intricacies of the infield fly rule*.
EDIT: there are other posts in this thread which are worthy of a reply. At present, I have been awake for about 60 hours, and thus I'm not in top form. I kinda wish these penguins would get out of my office.
EDIT: Also, not sure if you're trolling here. It's impossible to win five games in the MLB World Series. It may be that I'm ignorant enough about baseball to miss some subtle joke here. I'm good at making sure that baseball gets on TV. Not so much at being the sort of person who understands the intricacies of the infield fly rule*.
* = There may or may not be intricacies here. I only know of the infield fly rule because of an old XKCD comic.
EDIT: there are other posts in this thread which are worthy of a reply. At present, I have been awake for about 60 hours, and thus I'm not in top form. I kinda wish these penguins would get out of my office.
Game 1: Cubs 0, Indians 6
Game 2: Cubs 5, Indians 3
Game 3: Cubs 1, Indians 0
Game 4: Cubs 7, Indians 5
Game 5: Cubs 2, Indians 7
Game 6: Cubs 9, Indians 6
Game 7: Cubs 8, Indians 7
I count the Cubs winning five games in that list, unless I was really drunk at the time
Reply
0
0
08-10-2019, 02:28 PM
#31
Boost Pope
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Your scenario was
Game 1: Cubs 0, Indians 6
Game 2: Cubs 5, Indians 3
Game 3: Cubs 1, Indians 0
Game 4: Cubs 7, Indians 5
Game 5: Cubs 2, Indians 7
Game 6: Cubs 9, Indians 6
Game 7: Cubs 8, Indians 7
I count the Cubs winning five games in that list, unless I was really drunk at the time
Game 1: Cubs 0, Indians 6
Game 2: Cubs 5, Indians 3
Game 3: Cubs 1, Indians 0
Game 4: Cubs 7, Indians 5
Game 5: Cubs 2, Indians 7
Game 6: Cubs 9, Indians 6
Game 7: Cubs 8, Indians 7
I count the Cubs winning five games in that list, unless I was really drunk at the time
(Also, I may have been drinking when I did that math.)
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
