twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Douglas and Breckenridge comprised 47% of the popular vote.
National Popular Vote Bill gets a little closer to realization
- Thread starter Fogdog
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am aware that those in favor of slavery did not get a majority. i've been telling you that, you fucking cuck.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
they comprised the majority
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no they didn't, you retard.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
bell agrued the constitution protected slavery.
Douglas penned the Kansas nebraska act opening slavery in the territories.
Breckenridge ended up commanding confederates.
these guys took 60% of the popular vote. it's not rocket science folks.
Douglas penned the Kansas nebraska act opening slavery in the territories.
Breckenridge ended up commanding confederates.
these guys took 60% of the popular vote. it's not rocket science folks.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bell_(Tennessee_politician)#
During his 1860 presidential campaign, he argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery, an argument which resonated with voters in border states, helping him capture the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. After the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, Bell abandoned the Union cause and supported the Confederacy.[2]
During his 1860 presidential campaign, he argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery, an argument which resonated with voters in border states, helping him capture the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. After the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, Bell abandoned the Union cause and supported the Confederacy.[2]
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
painfully dumb. bell was a slave owner.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Constitutional Union Party
POLITICAL PARTY, UNITED STATES
WRITTEN BY:
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
See Article History
Constitutional Union Party, U.S. political party that sought in the pre-Civil War election of 1860 to rally support for the Union and the Constitution without regard to sectional issues. Formed in 1859 by former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party, the party nominated John Bell for president and Edward Everett for vice president. In attempting to ignore the slavery issue, its platform particularly appealed to border states, in which the party won 39 electoral votes.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constitutional-Union-Party
POLITICAL PARTY, UNITED STATES
WRITTEN BY:
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
See Article History
Constitutional Union Party, U.S. political party that sought in the pre-Civil War election of 1860 to rally support for the Union and the Constitution without regard to sectional issues. Formed in 1859 by former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party, the party nominated John Bell for president and Edward Everett for vice president. In attempting to ignore the slavery issue, its platform particularly appealed to border states, in which the party won 39 electoral votes.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constitutional-Union-Party
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i smoke cigarettes and support massive tobacco taxes.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It was 1860. I can understand why you need to go back to a completely different era. The actions of todays right ringers is deplorable and completely impossible to explain or defend.
But, no. I'm not going to twist it even more an create fake history from 150 years ago. Lincoln won the popular vote and the EC. Strange that you want to debate this.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So then Hillary Clinton won the popular vote outright and didn't need to pool votes with Jill Stein, which isn't allowed anyway.
This is relevant how?
What a shitty post you made. I have no idea why
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So then Hillary Clinton won the popular vote outright and didn't need to pool votes with Jill Stein, which isn't allowed anyway. Where are we going with this? I agree that the popular vote isn't how we select presidents today.
What a shitty post you made.
Mcgician
Well-Known Member
So many of you are uniformed. The very reason why we even have a Republic to begin with is, that each and every state received, at least in some way, EQUAL representation. If some of you people want the popular vote to go to the Presidential election, why not everything else? If so, what reason is there for a Senate at all??? The framers of our beloved Constitution went round and round about this for a long time, all while Thomas Jefferson was abroad acting as ambassor in France during the Constitutional Convention, and it's crafting. As for the popular vote, there was a HUGE reason the colonies didn't want that. They knew that the urban areas had more people, individual states deserved their own EQUAL representation, and without that carefully crafted republic, all democracy would equate to without it, was 3 wolves deciding what's for dinner with 2 lambs.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
...and that's why we have a Senate.
That's not a reason to confound a popular vote for president.
Mcgician
Well-Known Member
Bullshit! Confounding nothing! That's precisely why. Read your beloved Constitution. And what exactly does a "confounding the popular vote mean, other than state-wide gerrymandering?
Mcgician
Well-Known Member
Really? How's that? Tell me why the states need a Senate if the popular vote are your governmental preference? If you believe in our Bill of Rights and the freedoms mean anything, please explain why?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Ok so now it's national gerrymandering. How is that better?
The power of the electors to choose has been systematically stripped to the point that only a very few have any choice of who to cast their vote for. The system is no longer the same as it was in the 1700s so it no longer performs the same function.
A national popular vote for president could be made more fair in a runoff or 'first past the post' style of election, but the electoral college no longer has any purpose because the electors no longer have a choice as to how their vote is cast. It's an anachronism that now merely serves to disenfranchise- that is, confound- the Will of the People.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Because the Senate guarantees equal representation by each State, two per State, regardless of population.
I fail to see any connection between how the President is elected and the Bill of Rights. Gonna have to connect those dots...