Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Negative reaction
Appathy

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Will the public react negatively to not knowing who's president or will the public majority just be appathetic.

Why just the two choices? I react with concern that several states seem to be little more advanced than the banana republics whose elections the US and UN feel compelled to monitor. I would react very negatively if I thought this process was being ramrodded through without due attention being paid to just what's what in Florida and elsewhere.

As for apathy, while voter turnout this time around still was not the equal of most newer democracies, it was heartening, especially considering the "choice" of candidates. Voters cared more than I would have predicted--and than I recall them caring in the past couple decades. It's a safe bet that most of these voters, who cared enough to stand in lines and wait an hour or more to vote on Tuesday, still care about the election's results, whenever they may be made known.

After all, what's the rush? We have another seven weeks before the new year/term. Gore is in an excellent position to form an effective cabinet in a short time and, hey, Bush is already gathering his [father's] forces.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are right, I should have given other choices. But I wanted a simple answer to a complicated issue. The Florida ballot was a joke. The result of this election will probably push us to vote through the internet by the next primary election in 4 years.

I think most people just want to get on with their lives. I'm tired of it already. Whoever wins the Florida electoral is the winner... end of story. The looser needs to end any pending court action and support the winner, who ever that will be.

It's time to move on folks!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are we really sure all of the standing in line was out of concern or out of previous direct bribes and offers by the democrats. Such as handing out cigarettes to the homeless????
I do agree whoever wins in the end, we do have to accept and support the administration.

downsouth
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Check this out:

http://www.sightings.com/general5/mandate.htm

This is precisely why our founding fathers set up the electoral college -- to protect the average citizen from being overruled by city populations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"This is precisely why our founding fathers set up the electoral college -- to protect the average citizen from being overruled by city populations"

actually I believe the thought behind the electoral college was to preserve state's rights.....and besides what should make a farmer in Kansas an "average citizen" while a paramedic in Philadelpia is treated as something less than an "average citizen" at least as far as his vote counts???


--Castigs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is precisely why our founding fathers set up the electoral college -- to protect the average citizen from being overruled by city populations"

actually I believe the thought behind the electoral college was to preserve state's rights.....and besides what should make a farmer in Kansas an "average citizen" while a paramedic in Philadelpia is treated as something less than an "average citizen" at least as far as his vote counts???


Since we're offering reasons for the electoral college - I'll offer what I learned in history class.

Some wanted the President elected by popular vote. Some wanted Congress to choose the President. The electoral college process was instituted as a compromise.

ShelbyBoy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think most people just want to get on with their lives. I'm tired of it already.

Yeah, I'm tired of it too. But just when I find myself thinking Who cares? Why not just get it over with? I begin to worry that too quick a decision could short-circuit what has become a great "live action" civics lesson: My vote may count after all. I may have some say in a government run by two gargantuan, clumsy, unheeding political parties. Then I get excited again.

I must admit that I have given up really caring who "wins." As if we needed any more indication of just what the choice of candidates entailed, those fellas are sure showing their true (mean-spirited, scared-rabbit) colors. The "loser" is probably the better off of the two, anyway, considering the antagonism and hostility either one will have to deal with from Congress and, apparently, about 50% of the citizenry.

And, finally, I expect we will need to put up with this as long as the press thinks it can squeeze one more drop of blood (read: story) out of the situation. Recalling O.J. and Monica and Elian suggests this could go on for a long, long time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Read the constitution on this topic and you will see that the states that had non-free men (I assume that means slaves) got to count each, at 3/5, toward the total population which was then used to determine the repesentation in Congress. Electoral votes are equal to one for each representative and the two senators.

We could postulate that this gave so-called slave states more electoral votes, even though they didn't give all men the right to vote. Thus a voter in NY voted for his elector and a voter in AL voted for his, but the number of electors was based on "total" population.

Sandy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We could postulate that this gave so-called slave states more electoral votes, even though they didn't give all men the right to vote. Thus a voter in NY voted for his elector and a voter in AL voted for his, but the number of electors was based on "total" population.


Just curious if someone can provide me a reference which lists the "slave states"?


Thanks

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Shelby asked:

"Just curious if someone can provide me a reference which lists the "slave states"?"

Assuming that this was a serious historical question:

Context: Before the Declaration of independence, a British judge had ruled in 1772 that there was no legal basis for slavery in England. In 1808, Parliament passed an Act prohibiting slavery and the importation of slaves from 1808 – but did not prohibit colonial slavery. In 1834, slavery was abolished in British posessions.

Vermont was the first US territory to abolish slavery in 1777, though it didn't become a state until 1791. Pennsylvania became the first State to abolish slavery in 1780. So, at the time of the Constitution in 1789, only Pennsylvania was by law a "free" state, although the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 had provisions making persons of African descent citizens of that state and giving them the capacity to vote and hold elective office. In 1804 New Jersey passed an emancipation law, by which time all states north of the Mason-Dixon Line had laws forbidding slavery or providing for its gradual elimination. However, there were some slaves in New Jersey right up to the Civil War.

As a parenthetical, the first Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 1793 giving slaveowners the right to seize their slaves in free states and territories.

By the time of the Civil War, the slave states were as follows: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of whom remained attached to the Union during the Civil War. The seceding states were: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. West Virginia "seceded" from Virginia in 1862 as a Free State.

Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 in the areas of the confederate states which were occupied by the Union army, and in the remaining states by the adoption of the 13th Amendment.

Resolution of the crises of 1820 and 1850 made certain that the number of free states and slave states stayed equivalent so that the South could not be outvoted in the Senate.

mglf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I thought this info was interesting although I have no proof that it is true since I didn't look it up myself...

One Vote
If you are one of those people who thinks one vote doesn't count, there is statistical proof that one little vote is important.
In 1645, one vote gave Oliver Cromwell control of England.
In 1649, one vote caused Charles I of England to be executed.
In 1776, one vote gave America the English language instead of German.
In 1845, one vote brought Texas into the union.
In 1868, one vote saved President Andrew Johnson from impeachment.
In 1876, one vote gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency of the United States.
In 1876, one vote changed France from a monarchy to a republic.
In 1923, one vote gave Adolph Hitler leadership of the Nazi Party.
One vote really does count.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just curious if someone can provide me a reference which lists the "slave states"?


Assuming that this was a serious historical question...So, at the time of the Constitution in 1789, only Pennsylvania was by law a "free" state


It was a serious question and thanks for the reference. When the term "slave state" is used I think many consider the "state of the states" as of the time of the Civil War.

This election has caused a lot of discussion about the formation of the Constitution. I think it's important to consider the "state of the states" as regard to being a "slave state or not" as of the writing of the Constitution.

I know it was only one or two - but as you have indicated - all the existing states except PA could be considered a "slave state" as of the writing of the Constitution.

ShelbyBoy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Shelby -

I did a bit of further digging, which was hard, as "firsts" and "lasts" are cited frequently but not so much the "in-betweens". Finally I found this set of "interactive maps":

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas/america/maps.html

Of the original 13 states in 1789:

1780 - Massachusetts constitution declares persons of color as citizens. Later court rulings in the 1780's find that the State Constitution impicitly bars slavery, though no definitive act of the legislature abolished the "institution"

1780 - Pennsylvania act (cited in the earlier post) abolishing slavery

1783 - State Bill of Rights declares all men free, though slavery was not technically abolished until 1857

1784 - Connecticut outlaws slavery

1784 - Rhode Island outlaws slavery

1799 - New York outlaws slavery

1804 - New Jersey outlaws slavery

Several of the states had grandfather clauses, typically forcing slave children to continue to serve until a certain age. The census of 1860 showed 18 slaves resident in New Jersey, though none in any other of the original "Free" states.

But to amend the earlier post, five states of the original 13 had some form of ban on slavery by 1789.

mglf
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mglf & shelbyboy

Check out Section 2. Article 1.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

There must have been some reason they wrote it this way. They didn't waste words. Maybe some of the states that hadn't abolished slavery had so few they wanted better numbers - "you can count your's, but only at 3/5".

Sandy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"There must have been some reason they wrote it this way. They didn't waste words. Maybe some of the states that hadn't abolished slavery had so few they wanted better numbers - "you can count your's, but only at 3/5"."

Ah, the famous 3/5 rule. This was a compromise between the more populous northern states (where even if slavery was technically legal, the actual practice of which was absent) and the Southern States who wanted to pad their representation with non-voting slaves. The deal was struck that the "other persons" (i.e. slaves) would count as 3/5 of a person.

This was superseded by the second section of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which read

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

Which basically meant that if you weren't going to let former slaves vote, then you couldn't count them for determining representation in Congress.

Though the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, provided that, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.
" (black) people were still denied the right to vote by devices such as poll taxes and literacy tests. Poll taxes were not proscribed until ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964. Literacy tests were prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) because the discriminatory history of literacy tests was held to be a violation of the 15th Amendment.

mglf
Ain't this interesting?
Print the post Back To Top