And that the slaves were never freed

by baldilocks

There were all kind of attempts to lure the GOP state electors into voting for someone other than Donald Trump. A few took the bait, but so did some Democrat state electors; Hillary Clinton lost even more electors that Trump did. But, now that the Electoral Vote is done—yesterday—and now that Trump is again the victor, but Clinton won the popular vote, there’s a new meme emerging: that the Electoral College is racist. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New York Times leads the outcry with a description of the three-fifths clause in the Constitution and a distortion of its relationship to the Electoral College.[i]

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations [Ed.: slaves and Indians—and women]. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

A more detailed description:

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people [sic] of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. (…)

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete.

Bloody Kansas Era Editorial Cartoon

The Compromise was a trade-off because no perfect solution to the slavery conundrum was available at the time. It was an advantage to the South at first, but over time, the advantages amounted to nil. (This also explains Bloody Kansas.) Strategy.

Thus was the infant USA not born the perfect USA; it was born with a birth defect—an “original sin” just like every other nation on earth. ( The Organized Left always wants to talk about “original sin” even when they don’t believe in real sins—at least not those committed by their ideological allies.)

If the North had not compromised, one wonders what would have happened. Two nations would have likely been born and lasted about as long as 1812—the year of the next war with the British. And that time estimation is a generous one.[ii] And even if those fantasy nations had lasted, one wonders when the Southern Nation would have ever abolished slavery.  Sounds like a Democrat’s…er…Confederate’s dream, no?

So it is that the EC and the Compromise ensured that a USA was born, grew and matured and that her citizenry and liberty expanded.

But, it seems to me that the NYT editorial staff dreams of a never-born United States of America and believes it’s never too late to have an abortion. What a surprise.

[i] By the way, let’s not forget that Alexander Hamilton was a leading advocate and architect of the Electoral College.

[ii] There were three wars between the end of the Revolution (1783) and the War of 1812: The First Barbary War, The 1811 German Coast Uprising, and Tecumseh’s War.

RELATED: Electoral College Mission Accomplished All Around Left, Media and Right

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

Well the Great Electoral College broo ha ha has ended as it was always going to with Donald Trump winning the presidency of the United States.

While this outcome is no surprise it did accomplish several goals of varying degrees of value.

For the Media it not only gave them content vital to keep from covering both the continued failures of the administration both domestically and abroad and the continued success of Trump to both please conservatives. It also gave them an excuse to continue to push the Russia Hack Meme that for some reason the administration doesn’t seem to want to brief congress on.

For the left it was also effective, it accomplished similar things, distracting the voters of the left from their massive electoral failures outside of the State of California, allowing them to push the Russia Hack meme distracting both voters in general and their own people that not only that the Wikileaks folks claim disgusted Dems gave them the info but that said hack, if it took place at all, publicly displayed not only the cyber security ineptitude of the party (and it’s nominee) and the fact that it put the mendacity and deceit of their leaders on full display, but most important it was a fundraising tool to get one last but of cash from gullible donors that they had failed under the guise of doing something.

But for us on the right and conservatives we had the best of all worlds.

  • It demonstrated that all the pronouncements of prominent leftists and pundits in media concerning faithless electors as the smoke and mirrors that it was.
  • It drew vital time and funds from the left that might have been used to actually combat our agenda.
  • It demonstrated the ineffectiveness of leftist professors, leftists pundits in print, digital media and on TV, and celebrities who loudly urged electors to defect.
  • It demonstrated the violent and undemocratic tendencies of the left by the bullying and intimidation attempts on electors which serves to further alienate voters from the radial left.
  • For all their rage they only managed to move two Trump electors and ironically cost Hillary 100% more votes than Trump.
  • Its failure further demoralized a left already demoralized and will likely drive more ultra radical to the greens which will pay dividends in future elections.

And of course the best part….

  • It gives us one more reason to laugh at them.

As Rush Limbaugh often said, when liberals are in power, they’re scary, when their out of power, they’re crazy.

More please.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Finally, today, the Electoral College meets across the nation to name the next president. No one really expects any surprises to come of this process despite much whining and last ditch appeals from the left.

Yesterday on this blog, my colleague J. D. Rucker wrote about this process and touched on the absurd Unite for America video that began running last week in which a group of disgruntled has-been celebrities plead for the electors to “vote your conscience” and select someone other than Donald Trump for president.  The first I heard of this video was last night; I was watching something on television and the ad popped up during the commercial break. I was half listening, checking my cell phone, when the gist of the video began to seep in.  “What in the world?!….” I thought.  Incredible.

At any rate, then I came across the plaintive plea by Michael Moore on Facebook in which he, too, pleads with electors “to vote your conscience and PLEASE do not put our nation in danger by choosing Donald J. Trump.” He goes on to insist that Trump cares nothing about being president and that he’s a danger to the country:

Trump, as I’m sure deep down in your heart you know, is never going to last the four years. He doesn’t care about the law or following the rules and this will eventually trip him up. You know how dangerous it is when any politician, Democrat or Republican, who’s a super narcissist is elected to office, they start making decisions that personally benefit themselves — and before you know it, they’re being hauled off to jail. Why not vote tomorrow for someone who’s going to finish her/his term? Why risk the volatile presence of Donald Trump in the White House — and help to guarantee another generation of Dems in the Oval Office?!

Really, I’m not sure Moore is known for this ability to see into the future, but perhaps he knows something we don’t.

The electors do seem to be prepared to fulfil their obligation to vote as directed, however, and the left will have to come to grips with it, just as Republicans did eight years ago. The pendulum always swings back.

In Louisiana, as well as many other states, the process will be carried live stream.

We can expect this nonsense to continue throughout Trump’s presidency; he will be challenged at every step. Just as the right (myself included) railed against every Obama step, the left will do the same to Trump. Each side believes themselves to be justified in their indignation. It’s American politics. As citizens, we should always keep a wary eye on our political leaders; some of them are crooked and evil indeed. Some are not.

The day we let a bunch of washed up celebrities overthrow our great American political process, we are done. Their effort to stay relevant is depressing.

As Americans, the one thing we ought be able to unite behind is the sanctity of our transfer of power and the political process. There must be something that binds us.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

Americans supporting candidates other than Donald Trump had 17 months to make the case to America why he shouldn’t be the next President of the United States. Based upon the rules set forth in the Constitution and subsequent election laws passed over the last 220 years that every candidate agreed to when they initiated their campaigns, Trump won the election. This matter is settled with one viable exception.

Before we get to that exception, let’s discuss the things that are not exceptions to the rules. They are relevant because they’re currently being used by the left in an attempted to sabotage Trump’s victory. As a proud member of the new Federalist Party, it disgusts me that so many Democrats are attempting to invoke the safeguards set forth by our founders to subvert the powers of the electoral college and prevent Trump’s ascension to office.

Fear of ridicule, harassment, persecution, or physical harm are not valid exceptions for electors to change their votes. It’s a sad state of affairs that we have to point this one out, but that’s the tactic that many Democrats are using today. Attempting to bully electors isn’t just immoral. It’s against the law, but it’s worse than that. It’s an action that eats away at the foundation of this nation.

Admiration of Hollywood celebrities and their “enlightened” perspectives is not a valid exception for electors to change their votes. The ridiculous video many of them put out in a plea for electors to change their votes is allowable and almost admirable… if you forget that it’s a ridiculous video. While I’m skeptical about its actual core intention, if we take it at face value, it’s still pretty silly. Again, the attempt would be admirable in a way because it’s a protected expression of an opinion, but in this case their opinion is futile. Even if their message succeeded, it wouldn’t change the result of the election.

Lastly, mass media anti-Constitution propaganda pushed from the highest office in the land and spread through the Democrats’ mainstream media minions is not a valid exception for electors to change their votes. We are a constitutional republic with an electoral college safeguard in place to make sure the worst-case scenario doesn’t happen. Trump may be the worst-case scenario in the minds of many Democrats just as President Obama was the worst-case scenario in the minds of many Republicans, but neither represented a true existential threat to America. Obama did damage, but we can recover. Trump will do some good and some bad, but it’s unlikely that he will single-handedly propel us into the abyss.

That brings us to the viable exception. Of the pieces of the Constitution that were debated by both sides, the electoral college was the most agreeable. It was called “excellent if not perfect” for one important reason. Their fear in the 18th century is possibly a relevant fear today. They believed that the electors could have the discernment necessary to make certain the next President wasn’t planted by a foreign power.

In The Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.

In short, the founders didn’t simply want to prevent a bad choice for President. They wanted to prevent corruption in any form but specifically corruption by foreign powers. While some might make the case that Trump has too many connections to Russia, it’s hard to imagine that he’s an actual foreign conspirator planted in office to bring down the country. I could easily make a case that Hillary Clinton was even more likely to be influenced by foreign powers had she been elected, but she thankfully was not. With that said, I have called on conservative media to help sort this whole Russia business out.

If electors truly believe that Trump is a Russian plant who will intentionally bring down the nation on orders from Vladimir Putin, they should exercise their rights as electors to prevent it. If they believe the more likely scenario that he’s a patriotic American who wants to forge a good relationship with Russia, then that’s simply not viable grounds to change their vote. For the sake of as smooth of a transition of power as possible, the electors should vote for whoever their state’s voters selected as President. The final tally should be 306 to Trump, 232 to Clinton.

It’s not always fun being a conservative in California. When election day comes around, I’m used to casting my symbolic vote knowing that none of my candidates for national races have a chance of winning. It was the opposite when I lived in Oklahoma. I couldn’t lose. Oh, what fun it would be to live in a swing state. Then again, I would probably be out knocking on doors and making phone calls rather than spending my time reaching an online audience.

There’s a solution that makes total sense, at least for the Presidential vote. Nebraska and Maine have adopted electoral college vote distribution systems that make for a much more interesting scenario. The way the system currently works in the rest of the states, only a handful can have an impact on the election. All of the others are considered safely in the pocket of one party or the other. Only in swing states do the people get the full attention of Presidential candidates. You won’t see Hillary Clinton spending too much time in Texas between now and election day.

In Nebraska and Maine, the winner of the statewide vote gets two electoral votes while the winner in each individual congressional district gets one. This would change the dynamic from having swing states to swing districts. Candidates would be forced to hit nearly every state. It wouldn’t be prudent to ignore entire blocks of the population as it is today.

The Constitution allows states to determine their method of distribution. This is as it should be and I am not an advocate for abolishing the electoral college in favor of using the popular vote. Madison and Hamilton were right in believing that the nation needed to be essentially protected from the potential tyranny of the majority by adopting the tenets of a republic over a pure democracy. If it ever comes down to it, we may have to call on people to change their electoral vote to prevent the wrong move by the majority.

What Nebraska and Maine do is allow for better distribution of attention by the candidates. A Republican would need to come to California for more than fundraising because he or she would have a chance of winning votes in Orange County and a few other congressional districts. President Obama won the only electoral vote from Nebraska cast for a Democrat in the last five decades by picking up the Omaha congressional district. By getting all of the states to adopt this measure, it would be necessary for candidates to spread their message and campaign spending to the whole nation rather than putting all of their focus on the handful of states that could swing in their direction.

Today, my vote for President is absolutely worthless while my friend’s vote in Ohio is crucial. That’s not the way that the founding fathers envisioned it. They never intended for 17% of the population to have all of the power in deciding a Presidential election. They simply wanted to protect against the potential pitfalls of a true democracy. That’s why they put it in the Constitution. That’s also why they left it up to the states to decide how to distribute those electoral college votes.

I won’t say that there are no pitfalls, but the positives clearly outweigh the negatives in my humble opinion. No vote should be worthless and no vote should be crucial. It’s impossible to make them all equal without switching to a democratic system, but a more sensible approach would change the dynamic for the better while staying within the original boundaries laid out in the Constitution.

Some may say that it’s impossible and they are probably right. Others might say that it would disproportionately favor Democrats. We tend to believe that when it comes to Congressional districts, but here’s the reality: if every state and DC had Nebraska’s and Maine’s system in 2012, the electoral college vote would have swung in favor of Mitt Romney. He would have had 274 electoral votes and we wouldn’t be discussing how bad Obama’s second term has been for the country.

A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed JD Rucker’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Mr. Rucker’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it, don’t forget to mention Mr. Rucker’s post is the reason you did so. If you missed his previous pieces they are: The one word to associate with Hillary that would doom her camapign and Trump is Exactly Where He Wants to Be Despite GOP ‘Chaos’




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Just as the state starts to swing in a more conservative direction our one party state legislature decides that our votes will no longer count.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

After all who cares what the voters of Massachusetts think, If enough other states think differently our votes and our decisions are don’t matter. We no longer have control of our own franchise. To say this is an abomination is too weak a word. Why even have a state?

Allahpundit is poo pooing this. He doesn’t live here.

Smitty is as angry as I am:

Abso-effing-lutely. This is what Article Five is about. Understood, there seems to be a psychological joy, which some find, in taking words to mean whatever they wish. Hence the Commerce Clause becoming the Constitution over the last century. Hence the “judicial deference” doctrine, where Congress can emote whatever it wishes, and We The People get to watch the 14-ish trillion dollar debt pile up due to Federal over-reach.

Any legislator who voted for this bill doesn’t deserve his office, PERIOD!

Ironically Under Article 2 section 1 the legislature has the power to do this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

So in theory if the legislature that electoral college electors would be selected by putting pictures of the candidate on the ground, cutting the head of a chicken and giving the votes to the person in the photo closest to where the body finally drops, they can do it.

And don’t give me the “oh we still need x amount of electoral votes states to go along, it’s this kind of incremental change that is quietly done and unnoticed. In fact it is designed to give legislators that out to minimize what is actually going on so when it takes effect they can claim surprise. The ultimate goal? To make it easier to steal a national election.

Remember we get the government we deserve, for decades we voted a one party legislature into office. We willingly elected legislators who voted away our franchise. We’ve done this to ourselves. It’s our fault.

memeorandum thread here.