Skip to main content

View Diary: If Husted's Electoral College plan for Ohio in '16 was now in place everywhere, Mitt would have won (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I will never understand why you have to have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayBat, vidanto

    an electoral college. It's an exercise in inefficiency, unfairness, confusion and an effort in avoiding transparency.

    It's one of the reasons I don't like to become a US citizen. And that's really a sad thing to say. Well, now I said it and am stuck with it. I hope for a reform that is meaningful. I would like my son to live in a fairer and better democracy than the US represents right now.

    •  Well, the Founders didn't particularly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vidanto

      want the rabble deciding elections -- you had to be a white male landowner just to vote, and even then, they wanted the electoral college between the rabble and the presidency.  They were small-r republicans, for the most part, not small-d democrats.

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, history lesson, fine - I don't live in the (0+ / 0-)

        past. And so are all of today's voters. How about thinking about why the country seems to be unable to reform itself.

      •  Property - Not Land (0+ / 0-)

        The states had property ownership requirements for the exercise of the franchise and for holding elective office.

        NOT specifically land.

        For example, in South Carolina, to be eligible to vote, a citizen needed meet the minimum property requirement of five negro slaves.

        To hold elective office a South Carolina citizen needed to meet the minimum property requirement of fifty negro slaves.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site