If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Maps show how the election would've gone if we had only followed the Founding Fathers original intent in the Constitution   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 103
    More: Interesting, original intent, voting ages, young voters, poll taxes, Buzzfeed Politics BuzzFeed Staff, Mad Men, electoral colleges  
•       •       •

10912 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 5:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 06:21:32 PM  

Virtual Pariah: Would GWB had been able to be a nominee? (outside of the Term limit question)


The Founding Fathers didn't put term limits in the Constitution, they came later (and should be repealed).
 
2012-11-11 06:23:44 PM  
Actually the graph doesn't factor that there has been changes in state law as while universal suffrage wasn't constitutionally guaranteed there were states that allowed for expanded suffrage.

Keep beating that dead horse and stoke the fires of racial animosity, libs.
 
2012-11-11 06:27:04 PM  
Well, the Founding Fathers also arranged for U.S. Senators to be appointed by the state legislators, not elected by the people. Let's face it, the F.F. weren't terribly small-D democratic.
 
2012-11-11 06:30:00 PM  

thamike: jso2897: HotIgneous Intruder: Lost Thought 00: minoridiot: I thought votes were suppose to be secret. How did they acquire this data other than pulling it out of their assess?

Exit polls. Basically, voluntary questionnaires outside of randomly selected polling places

Judas priest, are you idiots?

I don't know if they're idiots, but they're a horrible f**king band.

If you say that in the mirror, Rob Halford and Right Said Fred appear and give you a spit-roasting.


I was shocked - SHOCKED!!

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

to hear that Halford is gay
 
2012-11-11 06:33:22 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Virtual Pariah: (outside of the Term limit question)

Term limits for the presidency weren't considered until after the FDR administration.


by butthurt Republicans changing the electoral rules
 
2012-11-11 06:37:44 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Um... not to rain on the dude's parade, but until the early 1900s the electoral college was appointed, for the most part, by the congresses, the methods only gradually shifted the the popular vote and winner-take-all method for the states gradually over the better part of a century.


Let's also not forget that before the 17th Amendment, Senators would have been appointed by the state legislatures. How many seats would be vacant going on three, five or even ten years? A Senator dies, resigns, or retires, and the partisan bickering in the state legislatures would result in deadlock and vacancy. We'd be looking at a Senate with less than 90% occupancy, or Akin or Murdoch would have been appointed despite his comments on rape.
 
2012-11-11 06:40:41 PM  

RepealThe22nd: Virtual Pariah: Would GWB had been able to be a nominee? (outside of the Term limit question)

The Founding Fathers didn't put term limits in the Constitution, they came later (and should be repealed).


It'd be wonderful to watch the republican reaction to the prospect of 3 or 4 more terms for Obama. I'd say thats reason enough to repeal that.
 
2012-11-11 06:41:51 PM  

Virtual Pariah: I was thinking about the same thing.

Originally neither the Black man nor the Mormon would have been eligible to run.
So the race would have been tied 0/0 for these candidates.

Would GWB had been able to be a nominee? (outside of the Term limit question)


Why wouldn't the Mormon have been eligible? He's a white, land- owning male.
 
2012-11-11 06:41:59 PM  
Know how many states there were in 1789??? Derpteen.

The issues with the candidates have already been mentioned. We also don't know what kind of campaigns would've been run had these different restrictions been in place.

Dumb.
 
2012-11-11 06:44:22 PM  

An Account To Make Comments: It'd be wonderful to watch the republican reaction to the prospect of 3 or 4 more terms for Obama. I'd say thats reason enough to repeal that.


Don't you think Obama has suffered enough? Let the man retire and go pick another good Democrat to be the focus of Republican impotent rage in four years.
 
2012-11-11 06:54:13 PM  

Greek: Virtual Pariah: I was thinking about the same thing.

Originally neither the Black man nor the Mormon would have been eligible to run.
So the race would have been tied 0/0 for these candidates.

Would GWB had been able to be a nominee? (outside of the Term limit question)

Why wouldn't the Mormon have been eligible? He's a white, land- owning male.


He wouldn't exist yet. Mormonism was founded in 1830.
 
2012-11-11 06:56:03 PM  

DamnYankees: I heard there's some map bouncing around right wing websites showing the results only if people who paid federal income tax voted. Anyone know about this?


I have not seen that map. I have seen one Freeper explicitly advocate disenfranchisement (using that exact word to describe it) by requiring a national ID to vote and denying issuance if that ID to individuals with a federal tax liability of zero.
 
2012-11-11 06:58:04 PM  
Sorry, conservatives. Things always change, and history shows that those who resist change become irrelevant or are destroyed.
 
2012-11-11 06:58:16 PM  

Generation_D: Lorelle: The BuzzFeed staffers seem to have forgotten that at America's founding, Obama wouldn't have been eligible to run for President.

His white half might have been.

Oh wait, 1 drop of blood and all that.

You're right, clever and impartial observer of America's racist past.


Run, hell. He wouldn't have been able to VOTE, much less run.
 
2012-11-11 07:03:11 PM  
meh... I'll just leave this here because I just found it. I'll probably spam it in other threads just because I feel like it

bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-11 07:13:16 PM  

Virtual Pariah: I was thinking about the same thing.

Originally neither the Black man nor the Mormon would have been eligible to run.
So the race would have been tied 0/0 for these candidates.

Would GWB had been able to be a nominee? (outside of the Term limit question)


Term limit added much later. Clinton would still be President.
 
2012-11-11 07:18:51 PM  
Well, they certainly wouldn't have allowed a NIBONGO in the race. And Mormons had not been invented.

So ... Biden vs. Ryan? No, Catholics would not have been expressly forbidden. But doubtful.

Um ... What was the question?
 
2012-11-11 07:30:28 PM  
What a good quote:

[The GOP is] "a Mad Men party in a Modern Family world"
 
2012-11-11 07:35:02 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: No, Catholics would not have been expressly forbidden. But doubtful.


Three of the FFs that signed foundational documents were Catholic - so doubtful, but still quite possible. JFK's issue was that he came after the 1800s anti-Catholic shiatstorm
 
2012-11-11 07:36:35 PM  

thamike: Guntram Shatterhand: thamike: So can we all agree that Conservatives are regressive?

Pretty obvious at this point. Hell, they're still backing rape and racial disenfranchisement.

I'm talking about the so called "real conservatives." Can we stop pretending there is some fossilized version of conservativism that's just plumb awesome for everybody?


You mean Generic Republican? He's awesome.
 
2012-11-11 07:41:08 PM  
"if we had only followed the Founding Fathers original intent in the Constitution "

Technically speaking, the Louisiana Purchase was both unconstitutional and illegal, but it was such a great opportunity the US went ahead with it.

The US would look a whole lot different without that land and the land on the other side of it.
 
2012-11-11 07:48:38 PM  

Slaxl: The Onion is prophetic: There was only one Founding Father? Which one was he?

Joerge Fraveresson


The correct answer is Button Gwinnett
 
2012-11-11 08:05:02 PM  
'Is that some kind of Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better?'
 
2012-11-11 08:06:01 PM  

phalamir: herrDrFarkenstein: No, Catholics would not have been expressly forbidden. But doubtful.

Three of the FFs that signed foundational documents were Catholic - so doubtful, but still quite possible. JFK's issue was that he came after the 1800s anti-Catholic shiatstorm


So, what I said. Yeah.
 
2012-11-11 08:10:23 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: And Mormons had not been invented.


The odd thing is that laws about defining marriage between one man and one woman were a result of similar laws being successful in getting rid of Mormons later. Without out those laws, would there be so much derp?
 
2012-11-11 08:19:02 PM  
The writers of the Constitution never intended that we live forever under the original intent. If they had, they would not have added the whole thing about Amendments.

You lost, get over it.
 
2012-11-11 08:48:45 PM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: Women could vote in Wyoming as early as 1869.


Right... all three of them? I mean, this is the land of sheep and fear, dude.
 
2012-11-11 08:53:48 PM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: Women could vote in Wyoming as early as 1869.


In Washington, women got the franchise twice. It was granted by statute, then repealed by order of the state supreme court, and finally reinstated when women's suffrage was granted natio wide.
 
2012-11-11 09:09:37 PM  

WhyteRaven74: BTW there were 12 amendments proposed after the Constitution was created, there are the first 10 we're all familiar with, another eventually became the 17th amendment and then there's the one that's not ratified. And it has to do with how many members of the House there are. funny thing is, the wording is a bit vague, so how many members there would be depends on how you read it. But in either case, there'd be substantially more. Indeed going by one way of reading it, there'd be a district for every 50,000 people. So 20 members of the house for every 1 million people.


27th Adm. You mean. Was ratified in 1990s
 
2012-11-11 10:03:35 PM  

DON.MAC: herrDrFarkenstein: And Mormons had not been invented.

The odd thing is that laws about defining marriage between one man and one woman were a result of similar laws being successful in getting rid of Mormons later. Without out those laws, would there be so much derp?


In the beginning was the derp, and the derp was their god.
 
2012-11-11 10:05:11 PM  
Democracy by accident...
 
2012-11-11 10:10:31 PM  
wow... from the comments.

s3-ak.buzzfeed.com

Why are black women so racist?
 
2012-11-11 10:15:54 PM  
I know. Lets mock what built this nation and assume that our new vision will expand our greatness. Uh oh. I see a downward trend.
 
2012-11-11 10:28:56 PM  

vegasj: wow... from the comments.

[s3-ak.buzzfeed.com image 335x281]

Why are black women so racist?


Why are white males so stupid?
 
2012-11-11 10:31:44 PM  

vegasj: Why are black women the Republican party so racist/sexist that they can't attract women or minority votes?


Fix't.
 
2012-11-11 10:31:51 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Um... not to rain on the dude's parade, but until the early 1900s the electoral college was appointed, for the most part, by the congresses


Completely wrong. All but two states had stopped routinely appointing electors by legislature by 1828, and Delaware ended the practice for the 1832 election, and only South Carolina continued doing it. They continued through 1860. There were a few other instances when Nevada, Florida, and Colorado were admitted to the union and didn't have time to set up elections, and one where the race in Massachusetts split 3 ways, triggering a state law that barred granting the full slate of electors to a party unless they won an outright majority. Colorado, 1876 was the last time it happened.

You may be thinking of Senatorial elections, which were conducted by state legislatures until 1913 and the 17th amendment, but you're flat out wrong on the electoral college.
 
2012-11-11 10:35:07 PM  
this map is seriously stupid, for this reason only -- it's not building sequentially as to how it shows increasing enfranchisement by its data points. The 1870 map is ALL men (and CA is blue), then the 1920 map reverses to only whites, when it should be all men and women over 21. It took me a bit to understand how CA went from blue to red when women's vote is included but then I realized it was omitting minority vote altogether. Since it's supposed to show the continuous degradation of white men only vote, it's kinda dishonest . . .
 
2012-11-11 10:45:46 PM  

HairBolus: "if we had only followed the Founding Fathers original intent in the Constitution "

Technically speaking, the Louisiana Purchase was both unconstitutional and illegal, but it was such a great opportunity the US went ahead with it.

The US would look a whole lot different without that land and the land on the other side of it.


Can we quit with the elementary school history? It really wasn't. The Constitution grants the executive to power to make treaties, it doesn't restrict what those treaties can do. The Senate ratified, and the House granted funds. The Senate, whose power it is to determine if a treaty is appropriate, thought it was. Some strict constructionists had problems with it, including Jefferson (at first), but strict construction has never been the only acceptable way to read the Constitution, and even in the days of the founding fathers that Scalia lovingly pretends to know something about, it rarely (actually, I can't think of a single instance offhand) carried the day.

Many people really don't seem to get that the Constitution describes the mechanism of government, not (in most cases) the substance. It doesn't require a small government, it doesn't require a large one. Policy choices are up to the dopes you elect, within some fairly broad limits. You hear this "The Louisiana Purchase was illegal" thing in class because, while it's a grossly oversimplified and distorted portrayal of the issues, it grabs the attention of stupid children who don't know anything about law and don't care about history.

Now, Napoleon broke a treaty with Spain, and it was almost certainly illegal on his end, and we knew about it and tried to smooth things over with Spain, but in the end, can you guess exactly how much we cared about that?
 
2012-11-11 10:57:26 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: OtherBrotherDarryl: Women could vote in Wyoming as early as 1869.

Both of them?

There was only one Wyoming in 1869.


I think he meant women
 
2012-11-11 10:59:30 PM  

Generation_D: Lorelle: The BuzzFeed staffers seem to have forgotten that at America's founding, Obama wouldn't have been eligible to run for President.

His white half might have been.

Oh wait, 1 drop of blood and all that.

You're right, clever and impartial observer of America's racist past.


I assumed he meant because Hawaii wasn't a state yet.
 
2012-11-11 10:59:44 PM  

vegasj: Why are black women so racist?


Because Mitt Romney is a gaping asshole, dripping santorum.
 
2012-11-11 11:14:12 PM  

cretinbob: Satanic_Hamster: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: OtherBrotherDarryl: Women could vote in Wyoming as early as 1869.

Both of them?

There was only one Wyoming in 1869.

I think he meant women


You can't prove that.
 
2012-11-11 11:15:17 PM  

Aarontology: And that is why the GOP supports voter suppression.


YUP.
 
2012-11-11 11:32:23 PM  

vegasj: wow... from the comments.

[s3-ak.buzzfeed.com image 335x281]

Why are black women so racist?


I like to think of it more as black women having finely calibrated bullshiat detectors.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:55 PM  
I think it's interesting that Mitt wouldn't under any circumstance under any electorate carry Massachusetts, the state he actually governed.

It's like even people from 1850 knew he was a horrible governor, even though it wouldn't actually happen for another 150 years. He sucked that much at it.
 
2012-11-12 12:10:50 AM  
So basically what I read was this is a bunch of bullshiat so we can still play with our red/blue maps.
 
2012-11-12 12:45:43 AM  

Lorelle: The BuzzFeed staffers seem to have forgotten that at America's founding, Obama wouldn't have been eligible to run for President.


Why not? He's never been a slave and no one in his lineage was a slave.

At the country's founding free black men (who owned property) could vote in 4 New England states.
 
2012-11-12 04:01:21 AM  

magores: quatchi: The article's main point that Obama would not have been elected without the lady vote, the minority vote and the youth vote is made a little clumsily here but it remains a fact.

Hence O'Reilly's racist rant bemoaning the loss of white privilege the other night on FOX.

At some deep gut level some of these older GOP guys really feel that the country would be better off if only white Christian land owning males could vote.

Sad is that.

As a male, white, land-owning, Chri......

Oh, damn. Does 3 of 4 count for anything? Maybe not getting a kick exactly, but mildly bemused?


That's totally fine, everyone lies about that last one anyway. I mean, have you listened to the things they say?
 
2012-11-12 05:16:46 AM  

Proteios1: I know. Lets mock what built this nation and assume that our new vision will expand our greatness. Uh oh. I see a downward trend.


Puritanical kleptocracy built this nation. Over time, that gave way to education, civility, ingenuity, and organization. If you really want to be back on the good ship Syphilis with a cargo hold full of stolen people, a brain full of superstition, and an expected lifespan of 45, you could always head down to the harbor and look for the sketchiest guy with the least recognizable language and beg for a job.
 
2012-11-12 07:19:03 AM  
The first map, showing red everywhere except the extreme northern corners of the country, sent a chill down my spine. It's not like I didn't already know it would be something like that, but wow, it's stunning to see even California and New York as red states.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report