3 ms·

>The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out. It absolutely panned out. Smaller states joined a union they would not other

by gozur88 10y ago

>The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out. It absolutely panned out. Smaller states joined a union they would not otherwise have joined. To change the system requires 3/4ths of the states to sign on, too, so it's not going to change.

jonathankoren 10y ago
This is an ahistorical interpretation. All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. The idea that people would have a primary allegiance to their state absolutely did not pan out. No one puts South Dakotan at the center of their identity in 2017, but in the late 18th century they certainly did. For evidence look at how many signers and organizers of the revolution failed to bother to show up to the constitutional convention. There was no United States or national identity at the time. At best, it was like claiming to be a citizen of the European Union today.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical. >There was no United States or national identity at the time. At best, it was like claiming to be a citizen of the European Union today. Which bolsters whose point, yours or mine?
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    >They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical. Bullshit. The land is owned and controlled by the United States government. Do you really think a bunch of settlers were ever going to take up arms against government? No. Furthermore there is no evidence that anything else was even considered. Stop playing games.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      What US government? Prior to the constitution there was only the articles of confederation. There was no US. What happened as new states got added was irrelevant - the constitution already existed by then. It was the smaller states of the original thirteen that had to be convinced, not territories. And yes, they had a number of options, and that's why the more populous states acceded to a bicameral legislature and the electoral college.

by gozur88 10y ago

jonathankoren 10y ago

This is an ahistorical interpretation. All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. The idea that people would have a primary allegiance to their state absolutely did not pan out. No one puts South Dakotan at the center of their identity in 2017, but in the late 18th century they certainly did. For evidence look at how many signers and organizers of the revolution failed to bother to show up to the constitutional convention. There was no United States or national identity at the time. At best, it was like claiming to be a citizen of the European Union today.

gozur88 10y ago
>All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical. >There was no United States or national identity at the time. At best, it was like claiming to be a citizen of the European Union today. Which bolsters whose point, yours or mine?
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  >They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical. Bullshit. The land is owned and controlled by the United States government. Do you really think a bunch of settlers were ever going to take up arms against government? No. Furthermore there is no evidence that anything else was even considered. Stop playing games.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    What US government? Prior to the constitution there was only the articles of confederation. There was no US. What happened as new states got added was irrelevant - the constitution already existed by then. It was the smaller states of the original thirteen that had to be convinced, not territories. And yes, they had a number of options, and that's why the more populous states acceded to a bicameral legislature and the electoral college.