"No, that's not where the problem started - you're conflating the three-fifths compromise with the electoral college. The 3/5ths thing was to get the southern states on board with the Constitution, and the electoral college system was to get the lower population states on board."
You're partly right.
I was conflating different things - that's true.
But that fact that there are several different anomalies to basic democratic principles that can be conflated already at the founding of the Republic certainly does say that yes - that's where the problem started. Already at the beginning.
Which no one would hold against you if you had ironed those flaws out over time.
It's obvious the first legal framework you put in place for a nation won't be perfect - and certainly even less so over time, of course.
But oh no - you Americans had to deify your founding fathers and pretend like they where infallible and the document they drew up to rule thirteen dirt poor colonies, clinging to the eastern seaboard of a giant continent 300 years ago, will forever be perfect.
Which any other nation in the world understands is obviously nonsense!
I can't think of a nation in Europe - most of which are centuries older then the US - that has as antiquated a legal framework as the US.
Sure - we all have basic principles of laws that's been with us "forever" - but we rewrite the actual document from time to time to better suit our nations need in the times we live in.
Cut away some old stuff that's no longer relevant in a modern state and put in some new bit to cover things no one had thought about before.
While you Americans just keep reinterpreting the same document 300 years ago, word for word.
"Hm, ha - what did the founding father actually think we should do about revenge porn on the internet? Let's read the constitution and figure it out!"
It's just stupid of course. Just sit down and rewrite your constitution like any normal nation and put the old one in a museum.
The founding fathers certainly would have, if they came back and saw how completely outdated their old version was.
They where modern for their times, reading the newest philosophical ideas from Europe - experimenting with the coolest new thing called democracy.
Flaming liberals and progressives all of them - completely unlike anything American right-wingers today have tried to make them into.
I'm well aware of the US political parties shifting places on the issue of race, yes. Because that's what we're talking about here.
The democratic party certainly didn't abandon their southern voters (which are the ones we're actually talking about here, because the Republicans already had the rural voters in the north to begin with).
The democratic party was abandoned en masse by their southern voters, when they decided to support the civil rights movement.
Because it turned out being racist was more important to the southern white voter then anything else.
Which is why George Wallace happened and then along came the Republicans with their southern strategy and scoped up the racists vote.
What you're describing as a self-correcting system is your belief that the rural areas of the US having disproportionately large power is in any way a good thing.
Well of course you think that because you live there and you vote for the GOP.
But the thing is that's exactly what fucked the south the last time.
The slave owning southern states had been used to having an disproportionately large political influence, and they overplayed their hand because of it.
Not just content with keeping slavery in their original states, they pressed on to expand it into newly formed states and viewed any setback there as an assault on their fucked-up "way of life".
Then when Lincoln was elected president they went ape-shit in the sheer anticipation that he would outlaw slavery not only in the new states, but try to free the slaves in their old states as well.
Lincoln had no such intentions at all - understanding very well it was impossible to force such a decision on the southern states.
But like the modern NRA, huffed up on their own fantasy version instead of reality, the southern states one by one seceded - all based on their perceived sense of danger and insult over something Lincoln never did.
And still he tried to hold the Union together.
Then the trigger-happy Confederacy actively started shelling Ft Sumter and the shit really hit the fan.
All because the south believed that not being able to expand slavery to every state they wanted was in infringement on their rights.
And just like you now, they completely overestimated their own military strength.
Because please understand this, for your own wellbeing and the wellbeing of anyone you hold dear - if ever such a conflict arises again, the south - even if it's joined by the rest of rural America - will be utterly crushed again.
There is absolutely no question about that. OK?
Because wars aren't won by attitude and pithy rebel yells - they're won by manpower, industrial capacity and economic strenght and the south and rural US has less of all of that.
0
@Dorsai
"No, that's not where the problem started - you're conflating the three-fifths compromise with the electoral college. The 3/5ths thing was to get the southern states on board with the Constitution, and the electoral college system was to get the lower population states on board."
You're partly right.
I was conflating different things - that's true.
But that fact that there are several different anomalies to basic democratic principles that can be conflated already at the founding of the Republic certainly does say that yes - that's where the problem started. Already at the beginning.
Which no one would hold against you if you had ironed those flaws out over time.
It's obvious the first legal framework you put in place for a nation won't be perfect - and certainly even less so over time, of course.
But oh no - you Americans had to deify your founding fathers and pretend like they where infallible and the document they drew up to rule thirteen dirt poor colonies, clinging to the eastern seaboard of a giant continent 300 years ago, will forever be perfect.
Which any other nation in the world understands is obviously nonsense!
I can't think of a nation in Europe - most of which are centuries older then the US - that has as antiquated a legal framework as the US.
Sure - we all have basic principles of laws that's been with us "forever" - but we rewrite the actual document from time to time to better suit our nations need in the times we live in.
Cut away some old stuff that's no longer relevant in a modern state and put in some new bit to cover things no one had thought about before.
While you Americans just keep reinterpreting the same document 300 years ago, word for word.
"Hm, ha - what did the founding father actually think we should do about revenge porn on the internet? Let's read the constitution and figure it out!"
It's just stupid of course. Just sit down and rewrite your constitution like any normal nation and put the old one in a museum.
The founding fathers certainly would have, if they came back and saw how completely outdated their old version was.
They where modern for their times, reading the newest philosophical ideas from Europe - experimenting with the coolest new thing called democracy.
Flaming liberals and progressives all of them - completely unlike anything American right-wingers today have tried to make them into.
I'm well aware of the US political parties shifting places on the issue of race, yes. Because that's what we're talking about here.
The democratic party certainly didn't abandon their southern voters (which are the ones we're actually talking about here, because the Republicans already had the rural voters in the north to begin with).
The democratic party was abandoned en masse by their southern voters, when they decided to support the civil rights movement.
Because it turned out being racist was more important to the southern white voter then anything else.
Which is why George Wallace happened and then along came the Republicans with their southern strategy and scoped up the racists vote.
What you're describing as a self-correcting system is your belief that the rural areas of the US having disproportionately large power is in any way a good thing.
Well of course you think that because you live there and you vote for the GOP.
But the thing is that's exactly what fucked the south the last time.
The slave owning southern states had been used to having an disproportionately large political influence, and they overplayed their hand because of it.
Not just content with keeping slavery in their original states, they pressed on to expand it into newly formed states and viewed any setback there as an assault on their fucked-up "way of life".
Then when Lincoln was elected president they went ape-shit in the sheer anticipation that he would outlaw slavery not only in the new states, but try to free the slaves in their old states as well.
Lincoln had no such intentions at all - understanding very well it was impossible to force such a decision on the southern states.
But like the modern NRA, huffed up on their own fantasy version instead of reality, the southern states one by one seceded - all based on their perceived sense of danger and insult over something Lincoln never did.
And still he tried to hold the Union together.
Then the trigger-happy Confederacy actively started shelling Ft Sumter and the shit really hit the fan.
All because the south believed that not being able to expand slavery to every state they wanted was in infringement on their rights.
And just like you now, they completely overestimated their own military strength.
Because please understand this, for your own wellbeing and the wellbeing of anyone you hold dear - if ever such a conflict arises again, the south - even if it's joined by the rest of rural America - will be utterly crushed again.
There is absolutely no question about that. OK?
Because wars aren't won by attitude and pithy rebel yells - they're won by manpower, industrial capacity and economic strenght and the south and rural US has less of all of that.