I see your problem right there…
3 Likes
…and ignore the original intent of our Founding Fathers.
Since there was no direct tax on income, the tax payers were primarily those that paid property taxes. People who owned property were also sometimes business owners, who also paid taxes. People who paid taxes, and those that owned businesses, were directly influenced by the actions of the politicians. Laws influenced their tax payments, business structure, and daily dealings in the financial industry. Therefore, when it came to politics, those people had “skin in the game,” since they were directly influenced by the decisions made by the politicians. As a result, property owners were directly involved, and knowledgeable, with the policies offered by the various candidates, and politicians.
People who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day. Politicians were aware of this, and in societies where the propertyless could vote, their votes were won by the politicians offering them gifts from the treasury. The practice of buying votes through entitlements was something the Founding Fathers did not desire to exist in the American System, therefore unless you were directly influenced by a majority of the policies by the politicians because of your ownership status in society, it was better for society that you did not vote.
…and they were correct.
I get what you’re saying but can you please stop using the 3/5 Compromise the way you’re doing it?
The 3/5 Compromise was actually an ANTI-slavery compromise.
It’s been told to you many times…yet you still insist on using it improperly.
2 Likes
Very nice recap… There were a whole lot of people who couldn’t vote… women for instance… Do you advocate repealing the 19th amendment?
Where are the people, Smyrna?
The census is counting all people in the state except non-taxed Indians and 3/5 of people owned as property.
Liberals are so “green” they are recycling 2015
There it is.
2 Likes
HUGE flaw in this assumption.
What do you think it is?
4 Likes
There is no effort to smear anything.
Where did I or anyone say this?
Spoiler alert: your assumption is wrong.
2 Likes
People vote, not land.
4 Likes
People vote, not land.
Here’s a good map. Trump should replace whichever one he has hanging up on the wall with this more accurate representation of the 2016 electorate.
1 Like
If EC were to be eliminated, it’d do the exact opposite. Every citizen would get equal part in the election - one vote per person.
The way it is right now, maybe a dozen of swing state are where the only votes that count are. F.e. if you live in California, Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, Oregon, DC, etc… your vote is pretty much irrelevant.
the state of delaware has a population of just about a million people. its just under 2000 square mailes in size
edwards county texas is larger in area. it has a population of under 2000
should they have the same weight in a presidential election?
only a moron would think so
Humans can be so stupid…
where did i say you said that?
Should someone who owns an 80 acre farm on outskirts of town demand that they be given same representation as a cluster of 30,000 people who are living in a cluster of high-rises downtown in a mayoral election ?
Of course not, that’d sound completely bonkers. Yet, it is the same exact argument you guys are making here. Because obviously, if your next neighbor is 40 miles away, your vote is way more important than someone who lives amongst other humans 
2 Likes
