The Electoral College Didn’t Protect Slavery
The presidential election in 2016 reminded Americans of the role played by the Electoral College in electing our president.
Proponents of abolishing or nullifying the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct-election scheme are trying to delegitimize the traditional process by claiming it is a remnant of America’s racist past, created as part of the Founding Fathers’ effort to protect slavery.
The claim is completely false. The Founders did not create the Electoral College for the purpose of bolstering the power of slave states, nor did it have the effect of doing so.
The records of the Constitutional Convention plainly show that the Founders designed the Electoral College to keep the president independent of Congress, which would have selected the president under both the “Virginia Plan” and the rival “New Jersey Plan.”
Direct election of the president wasn’t seriously considered for several reasons, and it lost the few times delegates voted on the idea.
Using electors to select the president was proposed several times during the convention by anti-slavery delegates such as Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, and William Paterson. Opposition came largely from Southern delegates.
When the convention passed an early version of the Electoral College in mid-July of 1787, only three states voted against it—Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Delegates removed that version several days later and put congressional appointment of the president back in, but delegates remained concerned about the independence of the president.
In the end, the Electoral College won out over congressional appointment with only North Carolina and South Carolina voting against it.
It should be obvious that if delegates created the Electoral College as part of a scheme to bolster the power of the slave states, its proponents would not have been anti-slavery delegates and votes against it would not have come from slave states.
Some have argued that even if the Electoral College was not intended to strengthen the power of slave states, it nevertheless had that effect and helped to elect pro-slavery presidents because the three-fifths clause gave the slave states more representatives (and thus more electors).
History doesn’t support this claim either. With one possible exception, the additional electors provided under the three-fifths clause didn’t have a decisive role in any presidential election. The candidates who won the Electoral College in every election would have won without those electors.
The possible exception is the 1800 election for president, when Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent John Adams. But it is impossible to know how the result might have differed without the three-fifths clause, because both Adams and Jefferson received enough electoral votes from slave states to affect the election. There’s no way to know who would have prevailed without those electors.
What is known is that in 1824, the Electoral College prevented victory for Andrew Jackson, a staunch defender of slavery. Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes, but did not receive a majority of either.
The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which selected the anti-slavery candidate John Quincy Adams over Jackson.
Hamilton said of the Electoral College that if it was “not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
Those who wish to abolish or nullify the Electoral College might want to start looking for any of its real imperfections to press their case, rather than ignoring history and trying to falsely tie it to the vile institution of slavery.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/23/the-electoral-college-didnt-protect-slavery
Calls for British government to define 'anti-Sikh hate' after reported cases soarThe government should establish an official term for hate crimes against Sikhs, an MP said today after reported cases soared by 70 per cent in two years.
Preet Kaur Gill, who was the first female Sikh MP, has written to Home Secretary Priti Patel calling for urgent action to address anti-Sikh hate.
Ms Gill is the chair of a cross party group of MPs who have produced a report on the abuse of Sikh people in the UK.
The report, by the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs, aims to establish an official name for and definition of hate crimes against Sikhs through a consultation with government and the wider public over 60 days. They propose that the term “Anti-Sikh hate” be used.
They argue that while terms such as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are very well established, hate crimes targeting Sikhs are often “overlooked”.
The report also argues that some religious hate crimes against Sikhs are “almost certainly” being reported under Muslim hate crime based on the assumption of the perpetrator.
According to official Home Office figures, 117 hate crimes were recorded against Sikhs in 2017-18 compared to 202 in 2019-20.
Ms Gill, the shadow International Development Secretary said: “The scale of hate crimes targeting the Sikh community is a phenomenon that is largely invisible to government and the wider public.
“Official Home Office data for the last two years shows the level of reported hate crimes targeting Sikhs has increased over 70 per cent.
“However, the increased reporting is the result of Sikh community organisations raising awareness of the need to report and has been achieved with no government funding or support.
“This must now change as hate crimes against the Sikh community are on the increase and should not be hidden away and ignored.”
The Labour MP said the rise of hate crimes against Sikhs and Gurdwaras was a “grave concern” and that she had heard many “upsetting experiences” from victims.
The report said hate crimes against Sikhs became a “worldwide phenomenon after 9/11” and the lack of an official term or definition was a contributing factor to why this type of crime goes largely “unnoticed, unreported and unrecorded”.
Get Woke, Go Broke
We all know someone who, when it comes to politics, simply can’t let it go. Whatever it is – how you vote compared to them, some politician you like that they hate, a single issue on which you disagree – they simply can’t get past the difference. The obsession has ruined friendships and families. The thing that is new in year of the pandemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome is it’s ruining businesses now, too.
I’d never heard of Expensify before this weekend. It’s apparently a company that helps people and companies keep track of their expenses. It’s likely not a factor in your life, but it could be a factor in your business. Now it will likely not be a factor ever for millions of Americans because the founder and CEO, a guy named David Barrett, decided to call anyone who isn’t voting for Joe Biden an idiot.
Apparently, Barrett just couldn’t help himself, he couldn’t just let it go, and emailed every customer the company had, all 10 million of them, to tell them to vote for Biden. A member of the “tolerant” left could not tolerate someone voting differently, someone thinking differently.
Barrett’s email was a cross between a diary entry from a demented loner and a cry for help. “If you are a US citizen, anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy,” he started.
Like a child raised only on MSNBC, Barrett rambles on about “democracy” and how Donald Trump is a threat to it. How, like MSNBC, he doesn’t really say. He’s a believer, believers in conspiracies don’t need proof or facts, or even a grip on reality.
On whether the company should remain neutral, Barrett spews paranoia. “Expensify depends on a functioning society and economy; not many expense reports get filed during a civil war. As CEO of this business, it’s my job to plot a course through any storm -- and all evidence suggests that another 4 (or as Trump has hinted -- 8, or more?) years of Trump leadership will damage our democracy to such an extent, I’m obligated on behalf of shareholders to take any action I can to avoid it. I am confident our democracy (and Expensify) can survive a Biden presidency. I can’t say the same about Trump. It’s truly as simple as that,” he writes.
Expensify took in $108 million in 2018, but I’d hate to be one of his investors at this point. The compulsion to slam half the country, half his customers, for “thinking wrong” is the suicide bombing of the business world.
That’s what the left is - the equivalent of a terrorist organization. They demand conformity, they demand obedience. Deviate from what is acceptable and you are the enemy. And nothing is beyond the pale when it comes to defeating or destroying the enemy.
There is no corresponding purity demand on the right, Republicans fight with each other almost more often than they do with Democrats. If backstabbing were an Olympic event, Republicans would sweep the medals. A brilliant, unquestioningly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court is going to be confirmed this week and not a single Democrat will break ranks with their party to vote for her, two Republicans will vote against her.
Expensify isn’t the only company to cram politics into its business, it’s become a trend. And that trend will continue if they win. The mantra will morph from “you should do this” to “you must do this or we want nothing to do with you.” The “bake me a cake as fast as you can” crowd will make it clear they wish for our submission or else.
“So one final plea,” Barrett closed his email. “As a fellow citizen, I fully support and respect your Constitutional right to disagree -- and as an avid supporter of democracy, I value that disagreement. Constructive, well-informed debate (hopefully using the most accurate, least biased news source available) is what makes this nation so exceptional.” He linked that to a left-wing “analysis” site on media bias that ranked the Huffington Post as more honest and less extreme than Fox, and Buzzfeed and Vox among the “most reliable.”
That’s what we’re up against, insanity with a healthy budget and a deputized cadre of extremists willing to destroy themselves to win.
Like I said, I didn’t know Expensify before this weekend, but everyone knows it now. If you use their services, do you still want to? For a lot of their customers, the answer turns out to be a resounding “no.”
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/10/27/get-woke-go-broke-n2578798
'We're full!' Overwhelming number of Australians say the country doesn't need any more immigration as voters reject 'leftist elites'An overwhelming majority of Australians oppose high immigration, fearing it could affect their way of life, a study has found.
Before the pandemic saw the border closed to non-citizens and non-residents in March, Australia's net annual immigration rate was approaching 200,000.
Australia's population also surpassed the 25million mark in August 2018 - 24 years earlier than predicted in the federal government's inaugural Intergenerational Report of 2002.
With Sydney and Melbourne among the world's least affordable housing markets, 72 per cent of respondents have told The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) Australia was full.
The survey of 2,029 people was taken in October and November 2019 - four months before Prime Minister Scott Morrison closed Australia's border to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Half the people polled wanted a reduction in immigration, fearing it caused more pollution and congestion.
Study authors and sociologists Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell said rapid population growth before the pandemic had worried a majority of Australians, who regarded both major parties are representing the interests of 'leftist elites'.
'High immigration was responsible for the deterioration of the quality of life in Australia's big cities, as well as stressing its natural environment,' they said in an opinion piece for News Corp.
'Moreover, at least half the electorate do not support the progressive cultural values that left elites (including Labor’s leaders) regard as legitimating high immigration. 'This is a key finding since it shows that there is only lukewarm support for the core Big Australia strategy of high immigration.
'We can say with confidence based on our and other surveys that half the electorate are prepared to say, within the safety of an anonymous survey, that immigration should be reduced.'
Former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd a decade ago declared himself to be a supporter of a 'big Australia', with business leaders also favouring high population growth.
His Liberal predecessor John Howard two decades ago increased net immigration levels to the six-figures, putting them well above the 20th century average of 70,000 a year.
The TAPRI survey however found people no longer believed it was 'possible' to accommodate more immigrants.
'The conditions that made it possible to sustain a Big Australia and ignore this concern no longer exist in the post-Covid environment,' the study read.
'If the Coalition, or Labor, does try to revive a Big Australia many of these voters would respond readily to any attempt to mobilise them.
Australia's population stood at 25,715,134 as of October 27, 2020.
The survey found that most respondents who took a stance against more immigration were not university educated, while those with a degree were more likely to back immigration.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment