[RD] Change My Mind: First Past The Post IS voter suppression.

[cardgame]

I never thought they should be slaves, I'm not a Democrat. I'm libertarian - we (and the Republicans) were the abolitionists. Serious question - do you think a slave was better off serving a poor family than a wealthy one?

Liberals complain black people were 3/5ths of a person (they got that wrong too, slaves were 3/5ths of a person) and then argue slaves shouldn't even count as people. Seriously.

So obtuse as to be non-euclidean.

 

[Berzerker]

Kinda a loaded question there Berzerker but wouldnt your treatment be more important then wealth of the owner ? So your argument is pretty much Hillary would have been worse then Trump because she was poorer ? And the US should elect presidents based on their wealth ?

You're combining different debates, Hillary and Trump are unrelated to the 3/5ths compromise and representation of slaves. Wouldn't your treatment depend in part on the wealth of your owner? If you get sick the poor owner may not pay for your treatment. You say thats a loaded question, but the debate's about the quality of life for slaves (or illegal aliens) if they're represented or ignored in the census.

I say their lives would have improved with representation and others say representation empowered slave owners (and?). They'd use that power to get more resources for their communities thereby improving the quality of life for everyone, including slaves. The 'rebuttal' is slaves were better off free. No kidding... But they weren't free, they were slaves and their lives would be improved by representation.

So obtuse as to be non-euclidean.

Specificity > vagueness

 

[Lexicus]

They'd use that power to get more resources for their communities thereby improving the quality of life for everyone, including slaves.

Just...wow

Quoting this for posterity

 

[Patine]

You're combining different debates, Hillary and Trump are unrelated to the 3/5ths compromise and representation of slaves. Wouldn't your treatment depend in part on the wealth of your owner? If you get sick the poor owner may not pay for your treatment. You say thats a loaded question, but the debate's about the quality of life for slaves (or illegal aliens) if they're represented or ignored in the census.

I say their lives would have improved with representation and others say representation empowered slave owners (and?). They'd use that power to get more resources for their communities thereby improving the quality of life for everyone, including slaves. The 'rebuttal' is slaves were better off free. No kidding... But they weren't free, they were slaves and their lives would be improved by representation.



Specificity > vagueness

In those days, a rich slave owner can replace you by buying a new slave far easier if you get sick or injured, and thus be more callous about more health.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It gave them fewer votes

Now you're just trolling.

 

[Berzerker]

Just...wow

Quoting this for posterity

I'm just quoting arguments Democrats make about the representation of illegal aliens in the census... If it improves their lives why wouldn't it improve the lives of slaves?

In those days, a rich slave owner can replace you by buying a new slave far easier if you get sick or injured, and thus be more callous about more health.

It aint about being callous, poorer slave owners had fewer resources to devote to slaves. Wealthy owners could not only hire doctors easier they had the means to provide for slaves 'social security' and education.

Now you're just trolling.

Demoting millions of people to 3/5ths status means fewer votes, not more.

 

[metalhead]

I'm just quoting arguments Democrats make about the representation of illegal aliens in the census... If it improves their lives why wouldn't it improve the lives of slaves?

What!?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Demoting millions of people to 3/5ths status means fewer votes, not more.

Well... admittedly my understanding is only gleaned from this thread, but it sounds like if I owned 50 slaves then my 1 vote would end up counting as 31 votes. 31 > 1 yes?

 

[stinkubus]

Uh blacks couldn't vote so the 3/5 compromise didn't increase the number votes; it increased the number of representatives per vote.

 

[El_Machinae]

Would you rather your master be wealthy or poor?

Depends on his relative status to the people who were trying to free me. I want him poorer than the people who're actually willing to spend effort freeing me, obviously. Slaves didn't count as people in the three-fifths compromise. The three-fifths compromise counted them as increased representation for their master. You need a lot of spin to say that the compromise counted them as people.

 

[Berzerker]

Well... admittedly my understanding is only gleaned from this thread, but it sounds like if I owned 50 slaves then my 1 vote would end up counting as 31 votes. 31 > 1 yes?

31 < 51... Instead of 50 slaves being counted toward the census (and apportionment), 3/5ths are counted. That means 2/5ths dont get represented.

Uh blacks couldn't vote so the 3/5 compromise didn't increase the number votes; it increased the number of representatives per vote.

Many people couldn't vote, they were still counted in the census. The 3/5ths compromise related to slaves, not blacks or their votes. And it decreased the number of representatives in slave states by reducing the population of slaves by 2/5ths. Those people still required infrastructure/support but their districts were being short changed.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well... admittedly my understanding is only gleaned from this thread, but it sounds like if I owned 50 slaves then my 1 vote would end up counting as 31 votes. 31 > 1 yes?

Kinda sorta. Not really, but it captures the gist of what the compromise did.

 

[Berzerker]

Depends on his relative status to the people who were trying to free me. I want him poorer than the people who're actually willing to spend effort freeing me, obviously. Slaves didn't count as people in the three-fifths compromise. The three-fifths compromise counted them as increased representation for their master. You need a lot of spin to say that the compromise counted them as people.

The compromise counted them as 3/5ths... I dont understand your answer to the question. If you were a slave would your life be better with a wealthy or poor owner? Usually wealth (and poverty) is considered an important factor when determining quality of life.

 

[El_Machinae]

I literally answered that. What matters most is the relative wealth of the people trying to free me. I can't really answer about whether a poor master or a rich master is superior. But no, the compromise didn't count them as people. The compromise is a metric of relative power for their owners. It's not like the compromise increased their rights or anything

 

[Manfred Belheim]

31 < 51... Instead of 50 slaves being counted toward the census (and apportionment), 3/5ths are counted. That means 2/5ths dont get represented.

Well I think 0/5ths get represented in either case. But the slave owner gets more votes than he would have done otherwise (or at least gets more representation for his one vote as stinkubus says).

 

[cardgame]

They are slaves. They don't have any representation whatsoever. The 3/5 goes to their owners. It's worse than having no representation actually.

 

[Takhisis]

NO GODS! NO MASTERS!

You. ARE. disRES!pectingthe. UNITY.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Wealthy owners could not only hire doctors easier they had the means to provide for slaves 'social security' and education.

The slaves in your country had social security and education? I was under the impression that that they were taught only what they needed to know to do whatever they were told to do... and not much of that would have required being able to read.

The situation in the U.S. wasn't like ancient Rome, where it was sometimes very useful to have literate slaves.

 

[Perfection]

That statement, in and of itself, does have validity, as saying that FPTP as a system were designed as a "political conspiracy" would imply that such a "grand conspiracy' began with Simon de Montfort back in 1265. BUT, I think it's fair to say that many electoral strategists and not-so-ethical lawmakers and others who draw constituency/electoral district boundaries who operate in nations with such systems have become VERY proficient at abusing the system ruthlessly and playing it like a fiddle for unfair political advantage.

Sure but those sorts of abuses need not be present in FPTP systems, nor will switching away from FPTP necessarily prevent abuse. OP was arguing that FPTP was in itself voter suppression not that FPTP systems can be twisted into suppresive systems.

In short I think FPTP can be a functional way to conduct elections in a governmental system that's reasonably responsive to the needs of its people. I also think other ways to conduct elections can also be succesful. The question of which systems are the best for which circumstances are useful and important but there is much more at play.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The slaves in your country had social security and education? I was under the impression that that they were taught only what they needed to know to do whatever they were told to do... and not much of that would have required being able to read.

The situation in the U.S. wasn't like ancient Rome, where it was sometimes very useful to have literate slaves.

No, they had nothing of the sort. Berzerker is just trolling everyone at this point for lulz and people keep engaging him like he's serious. No one is this stupid.