I would like to propose a toast to the Electoral College, one of the very best things the Founders put in the Constitution. Not only so, but in order to amend the Constitution, it would require the consent of all the states that would be promptly disenfranchised by the move. What this means is that it is not going to happen. The Electoral College is here to stay, bless it.
For those of you reading this from some other nation, or for those Americans who did not get an education in civics, a brief word of explanation. The Electoral College is the device by which states select the president of the United States. Our president is not chosen by the popular vote. The vote that settles who the president will be is the vote taken by the Electoral College. The states decide on the rules that will govern the delegates sent from their state—each state decides how it will vote, in other words. That decision is made on the basis of the popular vote within each state. Out of the fifty states, all but two—Nebraska and Maine—apportion their delegates to the Electoral College on a “winner take all” basis. But it is up to each state how they want to do it.
Put another way, we are a republic, not a democracy. As a republic, the states decide who the president will be. Before each state decides how it will vote, they consult with the people of their state in a local popular election. In other words, in our system the states still matter. They are not provinces or administrative districts. They are states, and they have interests and opinions. Those interests and opinions are represented wonderfully by the Electoral College.
The Founders originally had another layer of protection for the states in the U.S. Senate—the states used to have their state legislatures select their national senators. The House represented the people and the Senate represented the states until the 17th Amendment moved to the direct election of senators. Now that the Electoral College has saved our bacon more than once in recent years, perhaps it is not too soon to call for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Now what does this do for the national popular vote? Well, it means that what just happened can sometimes happen. A person can win the overall national popular vote and lose the election. He or she can run up the score in heavily populated states, and lose by a squeaker in a multitude of sparsely populated states, and thereby win the overall popular vote and lose the election. Suppose Murphy carries California by 10 million votes, and loses 30 states by a mere 100 votes. Someone might complain that this somehow doesn’t seem fair.
But it is entirely fair—as the posted meme points out, in the last World Series, the Cubs and the Indians scored exactly the same number of runs. So why are we not in overtime? Because that is not how the game is played.
Both teams knew the way the series was set up, configured their strategies accordingly, and went into the series with that framework in mind. But a best of seven series means that a team can win 3 games by means of 12-run blowouts, and also lose 4 games by just one run. A team could lose the series and have scored twice as many runs over the course of the whole series as the other team did. And what do you call the team that only scored half as many runs, and yet who won 4 games? You call them the world champions. Why? Because that is how the game is played.
There is not a whiff of illegitimacy here. The overall popular vote is irrelevant. It matters not. We do not care. To try to make something of it now is like the Indians calling for a rule change that would enable them to play an 8th game. There is a name for this kind of thing—moving the goal posts, only in baseball—and it is called cheating. And this is not surprising. Those who are complaining that this popular vote result invalidates the election are the same people who fight tooth and nail to prevent Voter ID laws, and who do whatever they can to encourage illegal aliens to vote. And so speaking of that, how many of Hillary’s great popular vote edge were not actually American citizens? Or is it now considered racist to ask such questions? I have heard estimates that the illegal vote rivaled the size of Hillary’s margin.
But suppose we all granted that it is legitimate to play by the rules that were agreed upon at the start of the game. It is not cheating to do it the way we do, but what if someone argued it is simply inefficient. What would we say if someone in that spirit proposed that it would be a swell reform if we abolished the Electoral College? Why is that a bad idea?
First let us remind ourselves of the fact that it will never happen. I refer to the earlier point made about how this would require South Dakota to vote enthusiastically in favor of letting California make all their big decisions for them. A constitutional amendment needs to be approved by 38 of the states, and an amendment of this nature would be lucky to get 10.
If we abolished the Electoral College, one of the first things that would happen is that presidential candidates and their campaigns would promptly begin to ignore most of the country, and would start focusing their campaigns on Californian, Florida, New York and Texas. As they exist now, a presidential campaign is a grueling affair, one that spends a year going everywhere, and it is a rowdy time in which all manner of things are revealed, and in places like the state fair in Iowa, where the candidate might reveal how out of touch he is by not knowing what a corn dog is. The last thing we should do is institute any process that makes the current neglect of fly-over country an even easier thing to achieve.
But what about the “sacredness” of the popular vote? Well, for the progressives who think that this winner-take-all system is undemocratic, I suggest that they show us a good example. They control populated blue states like California and New York, and they wouldn’t have to amend the Constitution to do what Maine and Nebraska already do. In their commitment to the sacredness of the popular vote, why don’t they lead the way by apportioning their delegates to the Electoral College in proportion to the popular vote in their state? No? Ah, I think I see it more clearly now.
Fair is what helps you win, and unfair is what helps you lose. I am glad we cleared that up.
The “National Popular Vote” advocates are attempting an end run around the amendment process. They are seeking to get states to commit to giving their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner (as opposed to the winner in each state). The goal would be achieved when 270 electoral votes are committed in this way.
No point of the electoral college at all then because it would just be the popular vote. Mirrored in the electoral college.
The reason why a popular election is terrible is the campaigns would only focus on two cities with more than 50% of the population of the US: NYC and LA. As long as you win the majority in those two cities you basically win most of the votes needed to win a popular election. Also, voter fraud becomes a mssive issue.
So the number of votes equals 2 (for the senators) plus representatives proportional to population. This means there are more votes for populous states but proportionally higher for states with smaller populations (minimum of 3)
Are representatives based on the total population of the state or the population of voters?
How many people per representative?
DC gets 3, but you have 100 senators? Does DC not have senators?
The number of seats is fixed. Does this change over time? Shouldn’t it be linked the population?
Bethyada, we don’t speak of DC. DC simply exists in a vortex, much like Puerto Rico.
Total population of states, not voting population. And DC has neither senator and representatives, but does have a non-voting delegate in the House (as do Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). Statehood for DC is a frequently debated issue; Puerto Rico somewhat less. Statehood was last rejected by the people of Puerto Rico by plebiscite in 2012. The number of seats is fixed by law, but not the by the Constitution. It can be raised, but has not been raised since 1901 (except for a brief period after the admission of the last two states, after which it… Read more »
A. Representatives are apportioned according to total number of residents, per most-recent census.
The electoral college also makes cheating much harder. If we had a popular vote, you could manufacture a few million votes in one state and swing the vote. With the electoral college you have to cheat in several states to swing the vote. Much harder to do…
Yes, we are blessed to have decentralization. That’s another benefit of the electoral college. You can hack a voting system in one county, but another county votes by mail with paper ballots. And so it goes state by state, so if one were to attempt to steal an election it would require massive coordination, county by county, state by state.
In their commitment to the sacredness of the popular vote, why don’t they lead the way by apportioning their delegates to the Electoral College in proportion to the popular vote in their state? No? Ah, I think I see it more clearly now. Bingo. There’s nothing sacred about the popular vote except that it leans progressive/secularist for now. If that were to ever change somehow, the popular vote would be vilified and the electoral college would then become sacred overnight. Remember, there’s no true ideological commitment to justice, fairness, or righteousness from the secular left. Only their agenda is sacred,… Read more »
It’s true. Our state totally voted for Clinton and yet some want to dismantle the electoral college and flip our delegates based on the popular vote. Okay, so than Clinton simply loses five more votes…?! Try explaining that one to people all hyped up on rhetoric and ideology.
To be fair, the candidates ignore most of the country as it is, and spend most of their time in the swing states. So this change wouldn’t change their focusedness, it would just change the states they are focussed on.
And I would be a little worried about the National Popular Vote thing. They’ve got to 165 already… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
This is such a misunderstood topic so I appreciate the effort Doug put into this brief essay but I am afraid that the people who need to read this will not. The popular vote under our system of government is about as relevant as the number of likes a candidate’s Facebook page gets.
Not relevant? So the fact that 2 1/2 million more Americans vote for a candidate who still loses the election isn’t relevant?
No, it isn’t relevant because we don’t elect people for President based on the popular vote. This is a simple matter of civics 101 which you apparently skipped. Trump’s camp and Hillary’s camp both were presumably familiar with the electoral college and how it works and what is needed to be elected President via that system. You may not like the system or you might be ignorant of it but it does mean that the prior comment is correct, the winner of the popular vote and the margin thereof is irrelevant to who is or is not the next President.
I know all about it, friend. I’m suggesting that maybe a system that ignores the will of a majority of people may not be fair. If Clinton had won the electoral vote but lost the popular by 21/2 million you’d probably agree with me.
And if Hillary won the EC while Trump won the popular vote you would be first and loudest voice calling for the elimination of the Thwarting Of The Will Of The People. So long as the policy favors the rich, the white, and especially the male, you will support it.
I’m a poor, female, latte colored American. Would it be all right with you if we hung onto the electoral college?
ME, you are priceless!
You oughtn’t to a’said that, ME. That evil White Male Oppressor Wilson will surely ban you from his blog now.
Based on what do you accuse him of that?
SJWs don’t need to base accusations on anything. It’s how they operate.
Rich — he’s a “libertarian,” at least as far as taxes and regulations on banks go, and he opposes unions and the minium wage.
White: He is the author of “Southern Slavery As It Was,” a fictional whitewash of the horrors of slavery.
Male: He openly advocates for patriarchy, including opposing legal protections for battered wives.
Let’s stipulate that he’s rich, white, and male. What makes you think he’s a shrieking hypocrite? Are you sure you’re not projecting?
As someone who began on the left and shifted to the center, I do understand a common misperception and I think it is often held sincerely. That is that because genuine conservatives do not share the left’s views on how to solve social problems, they must be indifferent to human suffering. If you favor dismantling the ACA, you are in favor of restricting access to health care to whose who can afford it. If you oppose expanding welfare programs, you realize children will go hungry and you do not care. Of course, there are people on the left who use… Read more »
The only places that follow conservative principles have children dying from preventable diseases. See Kansas.
Why can’t Kansas be awesome like North Korea? ; – )
Seriously, why doesn’t everyone want to live in Southern California? The gentle breezes are tickling the azure Pacific. Surfers in the bay are hanging ten. Light dances off the palm fronds. There will be a high of 80 today–perfect sweater weather. And, as of the first of the year, I can walk around stoned all day, Not that I want to–but I could. What a great state.
The problem is living indoors. Eating and paying rent don’t mesh well in that locale.
Some of us get nervous when it doesn’t rain for three weeks. (Also, some of us have actual communities that we’re from.)
Dude! ; – )
I am so proud of Cali for legalizing weed. It’s about time.
But the stores won’t be available until 2018. In the meantime, it will no longer be illegal to carry it without a MM prescription. I read that legalization in Colorado and Washington is estimated to have cost the narco-cartels $30 billion in lost profits. Not that they care–most of their trade is in coke and meth.
I think many more states will follow when they realize the $ making potential. I am pro legalization of many drugs and pot is such a benign one for the most part. (Except some of that Humboldt stuff… oh my)
So……,
can we expect dread locks? Or are you already there?! ; – )
23+ million do live in SoCal, far more than any one state save Texas.
I know, and I think most of them live in my neighborhood. At least my neighborhood doesn’t attract the tourists!
Fellow readers, just a note on child deaths. Kansas has a population of approximately 2.9 million and has approximately 500 child deaths a year. Idaho has a population of approximately 1.6 million and has approximately 200 child deaths a year. The point is that there is no Pied Piper or Wicked Witch beholding to conservative white boys killing off kids in Kansas. A Dad is completely correct: “Why can’t Kansas be awesome like North Korea?” a communist country run by a Korean dictator using the most brutal methods possible. The North Korean child death stats aren’t readily available, but they… Read more »
Hi Karen, can you tell me more about the statistics? I was just looking over the CDC mortality stats for children from one to 14, and other than influenza, preventable diseases aren’t in the top fifteen causes of death. In Kansas, only 5.5% of children were uninsured in 2014. What am I missing? Are there a large number of anti-vaxxers or something?
Bogus accusations against Doug Wilson aside, what indeed if Clinton won the Electoral College while Trump won the popular vote? Would our Doug be emphasizing the same point? Would Trump voters happily agree?
Of course not. In his world the only legit government is by conservative white males, preferably from wealthy families. The rest of us just lump it.
What’s wrong with being conservative, white, or male? I thought diversity was all about letting all kinds of people into the mix, even if they’re widely detested like CWMs.
So long as you recognize that you are one group out of many with no greater claim on power or authority than anyone else, there’s nothing wrong with those things. Conservative white males, however, think that they should be in charge of everything simply because of their genitals and skin color.
Yes, this is the bottom line for the left: Groups (T)rump individuals.
If a white man shoots a black man, he did it as a representative of all white men.
If a policeman shoots a black man, the slogan is BLM, not that the particular black man had any value outside of the group. It’s not “this black life mattered”, as a conservative would think.
“…think that they should be in charge of everything simply because of their genitals and skin color.”
????????
When did genital color become a “thing”? ; – )
?
Let’s not go there.
Sorry Jilly! It’s not like I am “Joe” diction or grammar, I just thought that the injection of humor (and associated embarassment) had a remote possibility getting Karen to think a bit more about what she is saying, or at least how she says it!
In any case, I kept the joke as minimalist as possible! ; – )
And I am grateful to you for that. Karen is a sincere soul who is thinking in cliches. In my long-ago teaching days, I was elected Status of Women rep for my local union (I ran against no opposition which means the election consisted of my fellow teachers saying, “Jill, that’s what you’ll be doing). I suppose I could have refused, but not once I realized that conferences would take me out of the frozen wasteland at Latitude 60 three times a year. Anyway, I went to the conferences (skipping as many break-out sessions as I dared) and became pretty… Read more »
Karen, how dare you? You should know that gender has nothing to do with genitals and that race has nothing to do with skin color.
I know, right? Gender, race, and wealth are nothing more than social constructs. Karen is showing
herxyr racism, sexism, and homophobia by lumping all rich, white males into xyr cisgender, heteronormative paradigm. Frankly, it’s embarrassing having xyr here, as ze is clearly not progressive enough, as evidenced by xyr inability to grasp current Africana studies and genderqueer theory. If Rachel Dolezal can beblackAfrican American andBruceCaitlyn Jenner can be a phallically-endowed woman, then any rich, white male can be anything ze wants.For everyone’s reference, what Karen is doing is a classic example of identity politics combined with victim culture.
Karen is prejudging entire groups based on the color of their skin, or their sex. Karen is asserting that a group is privileged and therefore to be dismissed. Aside from being an irrational approach to the world, it is also bigoted and unChristlike. What Karen should do is get to know some folks, as people, before passing judgment on them.
Here’s a short video that may help Karen to grasp the principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
Unequivocally, I would. I wasn’t out setting cars on fire when Obama won the election.
That’s one. ;) Presumably not one who was crying “Rigged!” when Clinton appeared to be ahead in the polls, and not one who was threatening to take up arms if Clinton was elected.
John, the if is a huge IF. It is a large assumption that if the Electors do not follow their states desires and instead vote for Clinton, that the votes were cast properly. That is to say without bribes, threats and so on.
Huh? I wasn’t speculating about whatever happens next.
He and his supporters were grousing about a rigged election before he even won. I wonder JohnM… hmmm.
Something tells me that if Hillary won the EC and Trump was 2 million popular votes ahead, Doug would be explaining that It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people.
Show where Doug has given up an ideological stance (in this case, states’ rights) when it became politically expedient for his agenda and you might get away with that assumption.
Just because secular progressives use a pretence of principles to further their agenda (only to jettison them the instant the situation changes) doesn’t mean conservatives like Doug use the same underhanded tactics.
I am not saying he would give up a stance. I am saying a given different outcome he might have taken a different one.
Yes, I think he probably would, for the same reasons I would. As for Trump supporters, I am not sure, anymore than I am sure about the other side. As an immigrant, I spent many fruitless hours asking people to explain the electoral college to me. Very few people could, and I was not going around asking the intellectually subnormal. What irritates me profoundly is that my HRC-supporting friends don’t seem to grasp that any change could work against their chosen candidate four years from now. You can’t screw around with the constitution to get your preferred one-time outcome. On… Read more »
Jilly, and there are those on the left who believe that a vote for Trump was a vote for a rich man who only cares about furthering the interests (after himself) of the uber-wealthy and suckered those who think he has the working class interest at heart. Look at his potential appointments for commerce and deputy commerce secretary: Wilbur Ross- a billionaire investor who buys and sells off steel makers and other industrial companies and Todd Ricketts- a Republican megadonor. He is also planning to allow corporations and wealthy individuals to make large donations to fund his inauguration activities. What… Read more »
I don’t really know what he cares about apart from himself but I’m pretty sure it’s not other rich people.
So, why does he want to give them a monstrous tax cut?
Just speculating here but I expect it’s to stimulate investment and thus employment and wealth generation generally.
Ah, trickle down. I get it now.
I think Trump is a poor example of what I meant because he is not a principled conservative and many people voted for him for reasons that had nothing to do with his principles or his policies.
Yes, I agree. Tho I read as a lefty here. I feel more centrist and am as fed up with many of the positions the left takes as much as some of the more resaonable (non paleo-confederate white nativists) here do. I think a lot of the silly political correctness and the left’s stifling of free speech is reprehensible. I think the regressive left’s approach to immigration and ack of ability to correctly discern the threat of politicized religion is beyond irresponsible and might have made me vote Republican had they run an adult who didn’t make ‘christian’ noises. But… Read more »
A centrist’s life is a lonely one, enduring slings and arrows from both left and right. My lefty friends can’t endure my opposition to abortion; my right wing friends can’t stand my softness on illegal aliens, gay rights, and letting Muslims build mosques. In my first post, I was not as clear as I should have been about how a person can philosophically oppose government solutions to social problems while still caring deeply about the unfortunate. Take, for example, Katecho. As I interpret his comments, he does not think that the federal government should take responsibility for providing housing and… Read more »
Rand, using examples from Santa Monica and Venice Beach may not be the best idea. Many there are not downtrodden by the overseers, but are mindless after years of alcohol and drug use. Others are there because they want to turn on, tune in and drop out. For what it is worth, the Affordable Health Care Act was a watered down version Hillary’s 1993 proposed health care program. If you remember the War On Poverty and the Great Society were programs pushed by democratic powerhouses who claimed to have the utmost concern for the poor and downtrodden in Amerika. The… Read more »
Having spent many years living there I know it is an excellent example of a place where the mentally ill come to survive. There are hundreds perhaps thousands of homeless in the combined Venice/SM area. Many obviously schizophrenic men and women, many self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, many living in their vehicles with no where to go, many kids form bad home situations that are floating, getting by. Your well out of date Leary reference and inference that this really a willpower and morality issue says much about your understanding of homelessness and mental illness. So keep reading the bible… Read more »
Rand, I especially enjoyed your self-medicating aspect of alcohol and drug abuse.
“Many obviously schizophrenic men and women, many self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, many living in their vehicles with no where to go,”
There used to be publicly funded institutions for people with those problems. The liberals, (ACLU) thought people with mental illness would be better off on the street.
A lass, the liberals were wrong. Again.
If only liberals had read and obeyed their Bibles, and taken care of the sick!
How many homless mentaly ill folks have you taken in Randi? ; – )
Group altuism and grooming here we come!
Given what you say (and I am familiar with it as well), what are your thoughts about involuntary committals and the closing of psychiatric hospitals?
I find it hard to accept the notion that I must respect the choice of an unmedicated psychotic to live on the street. I am troubled that after the expiration of a 2 week hold, a suicidal person must be released even if he or she discloses specific intent. There ought to have been something between “Cuckoo’s Nest” and deciding to toss schizophrenics onto Santa Monica beach.
You mean do I think involuntary committals have a place with regard to stabilizing obviously psychotic patients? Yes. As far as the closing of psychiatric hospitals may have been good thing on paper to avoid Nurse Ratchets but given the stigma of mental health issues and public misunderstanding about the nature and causes of homelessness and drug abuse communities didn’t kick in and serve the needs of these folks. They don’t now either. It’s not as if you are going to go from sleeping in the 3rd st. tunnel on a cardboard box one night to self-advocating for mental health… Read more »
In 1991 I was convinced that I was Esau and that God hated me. My upbringing was thoroughly fundamentalist and I so badly wanted to love and please God. But comparing my ‘performance’ to other more successful ‘performers’ I realized that I was a sad pathetic failure. I read MacArthur who was virulently opposed to psychiatry as were most if not all conservative Christians. Without hope, I decided to kill myself, knowing that God and my mom and grandma would understand. I hopped a bus in San Diego headed for Lincoln, Nebraska intent on sitting in the 3rd base dugout… Read more »
I wish I could up vote this continuously. Thanks for sharing.
ACA was actually built on the Heritage Foundation’s idea which was promoted by Newt the adulterer and adopted by Romney.
“What are the chances that a vote for Trump was vote for the concerns of working class and poor americans?”
You forgot to pour on the contempt properly. The words are actually “racist, rural,and uneducated.” You know, the people you care so much about.
Are those the words I meant? Well, I do hold Trump in contempt at least. I’ll issue you a trigger warning next time ME. Seems like you may need one.
LOL, oh you needn’t worry about the trigger warnings, Rand! That’s for the fancy, smancy people and their safe places. Us “racist, sexist, uneducated, rural” people are made of much heartier stock.
I just continue to be fascinated by the amount of contempt poured over the poor and working class, all in the name of helping the poor and working class, and how people like you can never see the elitism and disrespect in your tone.
The common argument that crime is caused by poverty
is a kind of slander on the poor.
H. L. Mencken
(Doesn’t explain the Clinton foundation either! ; – )
Glad to hear you authentics are ‘keeping it real’. Fancy elites like me grew up in the south, worked on a farm, attended public school as a kid, didn’t go to a university and travelled the country for years living and working all over. While we do well now, we wouldn’t have qualified as even working class before about age 35. So on behalf of all the ‘people like me’ (in this group of one,) I’ll keep questioning how having the opinion that one should desire a qualified person in the office a president is elitist. And keep expecting fellow… Read more »
I thought this blog entry was about the electoral college. How did it get sidelined into a conversation about who wants to help the poor more? If you can’t win a debate on topic, change the topic.
You are welcome to talk about the electoral college. I am not in conflict with it so I have no need to ‘win’ anything topically there. I think the prize for needlessly complaining about the content of people’s comments conversation is still up for grabs?
Well “content” might be a tad inflated…
Show me one shred of evidence that he accepts any election where liberal wins.
He’s in favor of government by rich, white, males exclusively. The rest of us are expected to bow to our betters and endure whatever they dish out. If we wanted respect we should have arranged to be born with a penis and white skin. And yes, he is a racist and he hates women who aren’t complete stupid doormats.
Government by rich white males has a better track record than any other kind.
For other rich, white, males. For the rest of us stinks.
Your side lost this year. Get over it.
By a very narrow definition of “lost.” There are about 2 million more of us than there are of you. You might remember that and govern with a certain humility.
I don’t govern anything other than my household. But if we’re going to count noses, how many of those votes were cast by non-citizens? (Last estimate I saw was 3 million.)
As far as I know he never called for the violent overthrow of the Obama administration or even set any cars on fire. Does that count as evidence?
As for him wanting rich white men to rule, there might be something to that. As long as they’re not Romney or McCain or Bush.
Or Trump.
Or Trump. How could I forget.
“…he hates women who aren’t complete stupid doormats.”
LOL, well than, he must really loath me.
But also, let’s not slam woman and accuse them of being “stupid doormats,” okay? On what planet do we denigrate women in order to try to show how misogynistic someone else is?
I actually voted for Trump. I believe Wilson did not.
He believes wives are to be completely and totally submissive to their husbands no matter what brute the husband is. I know he makes noises about how churches are supposed to control that, but does anyone really believe that the men who run Wilson-type churches are going to give up one iota of their privileges to protect the creatures who exist solely to cook, clean, and endure gruesome sex whenever men want it? Of course not. The existence of a handful of books written to encourage women to endure abject misery doesn’t change that.
I know some men who are like that, both Christians and secularists. They are absolutely appalling and pervert those beautiful scriptures. If I had my way we’d place them all on a giant catapult and just fling them off the planet.
However, I have never gotten that impression from anything Wilson has written. There is also his wife,his daughters, who don’t seem to fit the stereotype of downtrodden and oppressed any better than I do.
I suggest you read his post about sex ‘not being an egalitarian pleasuring party,’ wherein he states that men conquer and colonize women and and women lie back and endure it.
Got a link for me? I don’t remember that one.
Oh wait, I vaguely recall some controversy! I think the objection was about, “In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” ?
I much prefer the term, “reflect and multiply” as in women reflect and multiply what we receive, but the idea is very similar. To “receive” really does require submission. We receive a Savior, we receive redemption, we receive love.
I didn’t much like Wilson’t statement about that because the imagery was so unerotic. I pictured a farmer (in a hat) standing in his field holding a seed drill. John Donne does it way better: “My America! My new found land/Safeliest with one man manned.”
To be fair, did he say “endure it”? Did he even say “lie back”? Did he say anything suggesting that he doesn’t want the woman to enjoy the experience?
He said “the woman receives, surrenders, accepts,” which sounds like she’s supposed to endure it. No one ever says she enthusiastically surrendered to or accepted something. Besides, showing enthusiasm would be unladylike in Wilsonworld.
Karen:
Wilson:
https://dougwils.com/books/sexual-dirt-and-a-gospel-backhoe.html
But only on his terms and only when he wants to.
..only when he wants too?
Well sheesh Karen, we should at least ascertain some consent before we jump his bones, don’t you think? It’s the polite thing to do.
Show me one place where Wilson says wives have the option of saying no? In his world men demand and women comply. Or else.
Karen, I’m really sorry that your world is so filled with rape culture, abusive men, and women forced to endure gruesome sex. It’s a very sad worldview to have, one that makes men the enemy and leaves women feeling like potential victims of all the world’s hatred.
So, my life is not like that at all. It’s actually rather joyous. There is no oppression and certainly not any fear. I’ve met a couple of genuine Christian Orcs on the internet, so I know such things are real, but that’s not Christianity nor is it the Christ I know.
You are exceptionally fortunate. Most of the men I’ve known who profess conservative Christianity have been monsters, and from what I have read more of them are monsters than not.
Where do you get that from what he said? Christian teaching is clear that both husband and wife must be sexually available to each other. There is nothing in scripture or doctrine that suggests only a husband may initiate sex. I think you are over-parsing the words. Looking a long way back, any time I melted into the arms of a man for whom I had feelings, I suppose you could call it a kind of surrender. I don’t think that suggests that I did it with gritted teeth. It seems to me that you are leaving love and female… Read more »
Oh, so whatever he says that disagrees with your narrative about how bad he is, is a lie.
Do you know what historical institution made that line of argument famous?
The Inquisition.
“I see. My picture of the biblical wife is that she is never “truly teacher.” She is “voiceless and invisible.” I would like to take this opportunity to introduce, for the very first time apparently, my wife Nancy. She is the author of six books, one of them a widely-used textbook. I like my women voiceless, but it must be added that I am really bad at making this happen. Oh, and here are my daughters — Rachel and Rebekah. Rachel has written two books, this one and this one, and is working on a third. She has also written… Read more »
That was a great post–if you were trying to set a world record for the most ridiculous accusations and straw men in a single paragraph.
Karen, listen to the overall tone of the women who post here regularly. Do we sound like women who endure gruesome sex without complaint? Do we sound like women who would never dare suggest to a husband that he might be mistaken? Do we sound like women who are either brainless or so beaten down that we are incapable of independent thought? I am sure there are men who are tyrants in the home. I have seen no evidence in a fairly long life to suggest that these men represent a certain kind of Christian. If a man has a… Read more »
I think you have all been extremely lucky. I think that your homes are not really patriarchal; that you live egalitarian lives but make patriarchal noises about it. Real patriarchs never allow their wives to have opinions. They may barely avoid physical violence but the threat is always present, and women have no money, no friends, and no means of escape. You would do well to read the blog “No Longer Qivering,” by women have left real patriarchs and see what life is like among people who take Wilson’s teachings to heart and really live them.
Lookee, it’s a “no true patriarch” fallacy. Neat!
This one falls apart under its own weight:
1. Wilson is a misogynistic patriarchal so-and-so.
2. Real patriarchs are abusive and make their wives into voiceless doormats.
3. All the women in Wilson’s life… appear never to shut up. I meant that in the most complimentary sense possible.
4. Huh.
5. But he’s still really bad!
QED
Farinata beat me to it. You have kind of set up a situation in which no evidence of loving, tender husbands and happy, unoppressed wives would convince you. If they say they are happy, then they must be simply pretending–either about the happiness or their commitment to that kind of marriage. I have read writings by patriarchal men whose views strike me as extreme. Wilson is not one of them. I have read quite a few of his wedding homilies, and I have yet to discover him advising the groom to ensure that his bride be bereft of friends, opinions,or… Read more »
You know, Karen, you just might find a kindred spirit on this blog in a dude named Ryan Sather.
The Moscow City Council elections years ago put many liberals in power — yet they were accepted. Idaho state elections put liberals in power for our district year after year and they are accepted.
Just a thought — but I’m sure you knew about them.
I’m glad to hear it, both that his home town rejects his ideology and that he accepts their verdict.
Actually, Karen your statement is false. Moscow has changed and we have more people seeing the rank hatred that is shown against Wilson. You wanted examples showing you were incorrect and just like the old Toyota saying: You asked for it. You got it.
Readers see your hatred and understand that you are just making things up.
And hey! let’s not forget about forced child labor! He “made” his kids write all those books! ; – )
Get it all out, Karen. Then let us know when you’re done and you’re ready to actually have a conversation.
Show me one shred of evidence that he does not “accept” any election. Like, maybe, him not having done it in the past?
Did he not “accept” the election of Obama? This would not be hard to find out since he has blogged about it and everything.
Doug accepted the election result for Obama twice despite not agreeing with Obama. Doug thinks Trump has serious character deficiencies. Doug has spoken well of Carson. Doug has frequently spoken well of Thomas Sowell.
You seem to be angry at a lot of things; even so, you should be more cautious before throwing around (such demonstratively) false accusations.
Karen wrote: He’s in favor of government by rich, white, males exclusively. … And yes, he is a racist and he hates women who aren’t complete stupid doormats. This is what happens when people consume too much mainstream media. They begin to believe narratives that are designed to provoke the very kind of blind emotional response that Karen is displaying for us. To help break through Karen’s false narrative, consider Donald Trump’s previous presidential aspirations back in 1999: “In early October I announced formation of a committee to explore a run for the presidency. At the time I announced that… Read more »
Hush, hush, don’t ruin this for us. The more people believe in that caricature of Trump and longer they do, the better — it helps discredit progressivism and the media to the rest.
Don’t forget he lives in a town called Moscow.
Wait, wrong narrative.
You’re doing great. Carry on.
Video of the rich white male patriarchalists practicing church discipline against feminist members: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivT-I-yxtdY
I CAN’T BELIEVE DOUGLAS WILSON!!!
Yes, but the fact that we have so many useful idiots hiding behind pepe the frog and fantasizing about disciplining women, does lend credence to Karen’s concerns.
She may well have chosen the wrong target in Wilson, but she is quite right about male stupidity and it’s uncanny ability to continuously replicate itself.
fantasizing about disciplining women
Only women who write silly internet comments.
That’s a strange line of argument.
Since there are some people out there somewhere doing something, this somehow “lends credence” to her direct and false attacks on Wilson?
If I directly accuse someone of beating their children who has never given evidence of any such thing, is “credence lent” to my concerns by the fact that some people beat their children?
Of course it’s right to be concerned about people doing bad things, but Karen didn’t express “concern” that some people are doing bad things. She accused Wilson of something specific, that he hasn’t done.
Karen has simply chosen the safest target to unleash her wrath against. I think she’s wrong to pigeon hole Wilson, but her concerns and fears are not wrong, the monsters are real enough. Her complaints about perversions of the gospel, her perceptions about some conservative Christian men acting like actual monsters is quite valid.
Do you want half a dozen links to the so called Christian alt right, with their endless fascination for bondage, discipline,and assorted other pornographic abuses of women?
“Do you want half a dozen links to the so called Christian alt right, with their endless fascination for bondage, discipline,and assorted other pornographic abuses of women?” Why on earth would I want that? Is there something that I haven’t written anywhere that leads you to think that I question whether that kind of icky stuff is out there, and that it’s way more prevalent than I am comfortable thinking about? I choose to treat Karen with more respect as an adult human being, holding her fully accountable for making a slanderous and lying accusation despite the reality of evils… Read more »
“I choose to treat Karen with more respect as an adult human being…’
No you don’t. Neither you or Jilly have the least bit of compassion for any woman. All you two ever do is act like giggling hens for the Spanish Inquisition.
That’s right, ME, when I’m not torturing kittens, I devote myself to oppressing all women everywhere (except for Jane, of course). I have a pretty full schedule what with slut-shaming, gay-bashing, and being cruel to racial minorities. Did I forget to mention that when I’m not painting swastikas on the walls of synagogues, I wander my neighborhood searching for immigrants to harass? My goodness, anyone might think I had voted for Trump–as you say you did. Just so you know. Hens don’t giggle. I think the word you were searching for is “cackling.” Over at the Spanish Inquisition we are… Read more »
“Over at the Spanish Inquisition we are pretty fussy about diction.”
Que mel brooks history of the world…
To continue the Spanish Inquisition, I presume you mean “Cue Mel Brooks’ History of the World …”. :)
Yes. :)
We have met the Patriarchy and it is us.
The whole world has gone crazy. It is too late. Carthago delenda est. Having turned to Buzzfeed to learn how I ought to feel about world affairs, I found this:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriasanusi/greatest-of-all-time?utm_term=.huR9wVVPMV#.kq0VmKKn5K
Jane, your points are exactly why bearing false witness is such a serious problem. Scripture deals with this dangerous sin strictly.
The past few years would have been much calmer without the huge outcry brought by false witness provided via the internet as to what happened in Moscow years ago.
Bearing false witness is a serious issue.
Do you want hundreds of links of men who lost their savings and kids to frivorce…or hundreds more who have stayed faithful to their wives but are locked into sexless marriage prisons with women who are never satisfied with anything?
If a bunch of links can justify the likes of Karen, they can certainly justify the manosphere. Or we can refuse to play such games.
On that reasoning, Jane, you and I are responsible for the Crusades and the Inquisition. I suppose I had better preface any future remarks about Catholic teaching with a disclaimer: “While firmly repudiating any wicked thought or deed in the history of the Roman Catholic church, I would timidly point out that…” I should set it up on Cut and Paste to save time.
I’m trying to figure out how I’m the inquisition when I’m defending a man against someone who came out of nowhere and accused him of particular sins on the sole basis that he is the sort of person who would commit those sins and we know that everyone of that sort of person commits those kinds of sins. Stop me if I’m wrong, but I thought the problem with the Inquisition was false accusations based on false standards, not the fact that too many people were being defended against spurious charges and not enough compassion was being shown to the… Read more »
No. True caring lies in affirming someone’s perception, however dopy, untrue or unreasonable, if that someone is a woman and you are too. Otherwise you are dissing the sisterhood. You are being all cerebral and cold when you should having a nice all-men-are-rapists huddle. Who are we to insist that truth matters against the larger mission of holding Wicked Men Accountable?
“That’s a strange line of argument.”
Unfortunately, ME seems to be quite fond of that “logic”, at least when it comes to certain topics such as men abusing women and attempting to justify the abuse as being Christian teaching. Apparently, that is a pandemic that is recognized only by a privileged few.
Unfortunately, you don’t have to spend much time in the bookstore to realize that far too many women share that kind of fantasy. Shades of Gray, anyone?
I’m asking for the basis for your accusation that if the tables were turned, he’d act opposite. You cannot know that. Therefore, your accusation is fundamentally a slander and a lie.
Based on nothing at all but the inflamed desire to accuse.
Karen, what if I told you rich white men are not your real enemy?
You would be lying.
Your real enemy is the liar, the thief, and the murder known as the devil.
You are making grandiose, inflammatory assertions without evidence. Why would you do such a thing? Imagine if I, as a man, made a similarly grandiose statement like, “I believe that all women are involved in a conspiracy to marry men, divorce them, and take all their money through alimony and child support.” How would you react to a statement like that? Would you argue with that? No, you’d (rightly) recoil in disgust and perhaps even fear. Tell me why I, upon reading your statement, should react any differently.
Show me the evidence that Wilson thinks differently from my assertion, especially my assertion that he thinks that only wealthy white males should hold power in our society.
Well, he was against Trump.
Just curious, are you white?
Doubling down on your statements does not equate to an argument. Think about how you’re being perceived right now, by me and by others. You are perceived as a cliche, and a boring one at that. Is that what you want? To be a cliche? Wouldn’t you rather be original, unique, and you?
I am female. Nothing I say other than “yes, sir” will ever make an impression on you.
I can assure you that is not true. There are many things you could say that would make an impression on me. For starters, if you were to provide facts or specific quotes to back up your assertions, that would demonstrate to me that you’re not a SJW cliche (and I’m rooting for you in this regard, by the way). Or you could simply own the fact that what you were saying was grounded in emotions rather than facts. Or you could say anything at all that shows some level of introspection, as it would repudiate the current view I… Read more »
You’ve made an impression all right.
I am a woman. I can tell blind hatred and sophistical argument when I see it.
No, Jane, it goes:
I AM WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Making that assumption relieves you of the burden of developing a logical argument, supported by evidence. “Because Karen is female, Ben won’t believe her when she swears that black is white.”
I don’t think he minds wealthy, male non-whites holding positions of power as long as they have Christian principles.
Which has me seriously wondering how Fidel Castro amassed a fortune of $900,000,000 in a country where university professors have to moonlight as taxi drivers to put foot on the table.
It’s accusations that require evidence. You accuse him of what he would do in a hypothetical situation, which is by definition a false accusation since you cannot know.
Yeah, classic burden-of-proof shifting.
He thought Sarah Pailin should be vice president.
If Wilson is half as bad as you say, why hasn’t he banned you from posting here yet?
The fact that he hasn’t shows that he’s twice as bad as she says, imho. ;)
It’s diabolically clever. Never do the things people accuse you of constantly dreaming of doing, and your deluded fans will all believe you don’t want to do them. Meanwhile, your critics know the truth.
Be careful demanding rule by popular vote. You are calling into question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. He lost the popular vote to Hillary in 2008.
A majority of voters (Trump + Johnson + Stein + Darrell Castle + Mike Snow) rejected the establishment; and some of the majority (Bernie to Hillary) would’ve liked to–and SOME of Bernie’s concerns Trump might be able to address. So the claim “Hillary won the popular vote” is, well, debatable; a majority rejected her; not-Hillary won the popular vote. (And remember, set up a system for your side to be on the short end. If our guy got more votes but lost the electoral college, you still gonna say how great the EC is? In the ’80s, GOP US House… Read more »
This election was about us vs them. When one player in a chess game pulls a knife, it does little good for the other player to reaffirm his commitment to the rules of chess. Playing by the rules is a laudable goal, but it requires two parties who are willing to do so.
“for those Americans who did not get an education in civics. . .”
Just one of the reasons I hope and pray Logos some day reinstitutes a Civics class.
“I refer to the earlier point made about how this would require South Dakota to vote enthusiastically in favor of letting California make all their big decisions for them.”
I’m not sure letting california decide who’s president equates to lettimg them make all the big decisions.
Where the Executive Branch of the federal government increasingly makes the consequential decisions, it does.
But the electoral college does nothing to hinder executive over reach.
It does something to hinder California’s would-be-executive’s overreach.
You’re sugesting the president could be bought with votes over dollars?
You’re suggesting the president should abuse baby kittens?
Yeah, isn’t that in the constitution somewhere?
My point about the electoral college is that the big decisions for a state are not going to be decided by the predsdent, so a popular vote for presedent would not usher in the dictatorship of california over Wyoming.
Just pointing out that 41 states were completely ignored in 2016 even with the Electoral College.
If the Electoral College were abolished, California and other states are so sewn up that they still wouldn’t get campaign events. Nice move how in this comment “ignored” implies something to do with votes being ignored, when you are just talking about campaign events.
So campaign events are just for kicks and giggles? Silly me, I thought they were meant for potential voters.
An absence of campaign events does not equal votes or states being ignored. You can be sure that both campaigns took note of potential California votes in developing their strategies.
So, how many states would be “completely ignored” if the EC were abolished? The point is, given the state lines, and the national population distribution, some regions of the country will inevitably be swing states in the presidential election.
Not in California. It exists as a cash cow and very little else.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016
“If we abolished the Electoral College, one of the first things that would happen is that presidential candidates and their campaigns would promptly begin to ignore most of the country, and would start focusing their campaigns on Californian, Florida, New York and Texas.” This shows not only a lack of imagination but also inattention to the actual numbers. California: 24.9 million registered voters. New York: 12.5 million registered voters. Florida: 12.7 million registered voters. Texas: just over 15 million registered voters. (Texas SOS doesn’t seem to have the most recent total up yet.) USA altogether: just over 200 million registered… Read more »
Actually, it does prove out at all levels. In Washington state, the ultra liberal Seattle area commands whatever happens in that state regardless of the wishes of those living east of the Cascades. In Idaho, the power is in Ada County and the area around Boise. In other states, you see exactly the same power swing requiring those conservative members living in rural areas to bow to the wishes and demands of the liberal population living in large urban areas. Imagination was required to set up the Electoral College. Imagination to protect those living away from the blood sucking liberal… Read more »
You haven’t in any way addressed the substance of what I was saying.
Actually garrulous, I did as did BJ, Dunsworth, John M and Denise. At the local and state levels, urban areas drive the cart. Without the Electoral College, urban areas would drive the national wagon. The Senate has two senators regardless of the population of the state keeping the more populated areas in check. In the House, we gave up on adding members as the population grew. The Electoral College reminds us of our republic government and prevents the democratic popular vote method from destroying our society. In today’s America, the urban areas are populated with those gathering their daily bread… Read more »
Dude, you are going all over the place. I was saying that the argument that candidates would just campaign in 4 states for the popular vote is false. It’s based on bad math and a failure to consider different viable strategies. If you want to say I’m wrong, stay focused on those points and try using some actual numbers to back up what you’re saying.
I did focus on your points and added a few more that correspond to the issue — viable strategies so to say. I;m sorry you didn’t see the connection. Also, there is not a good track record for third party candidates doing anything except getting in the way. In American politics, third party candidates are only spoilers. So, that dog doesn’t hunt. If the popular vote were the only vote that counted, why would anyone spend money in areas that don’t have maximum return on campaign dollars? We see that in local, state and federal programs all the time. The… Read more »
Okay, since you’re obviously more interested in further jading a well-worn set of complaints about non-rural voters than actually trying to understand what I’m talking about, let me paint out a very simplistic version of the kind of scenario I’m talking about: The Republican and Democratic candidates each decide to campaign only in CA, NY, FL, and TX. These States together contain 32.5% of the total vote, and each establishment candidate is hoping to get slightly more than half of this. For some reason they don’t think the other States are worth campaigning in. Much to their surprise, a candidate… Read more »
I understand exactly what your point is. However, the third party candidate will never win in America even with the example you posted. The really popular spoiler candidate did woo the other states and only skewed the vote. H. Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote which is the highest percentage in the last 100 years of American polls. There is no way your scenario will play out here. As a note: My mom, her siblings and my aunts all went to school with H. Ross and were of the opinion that even from the early school days he… Read more »
This isn’t 1992, and I ain’t talking about Ross Perot. If you’re judging what is possible only based on what has already happened, you’re making the same mistake as those of us who thought that there was no way a 70-year-old man-baby and serial liar would get the Republican nomination, let alone win a majority of Electoral votes. If there were no Electoral College this year, Bernie Sanders could have made a credible third-party run without having to worry about turning any of the swing states red. There would still be the complaint about him splitting the “liberal vote”, but… Read more »
Lots of ‘ghetto’ kids make it out inspired by those kinds of ideas.
Nebraska needs more Navy bases! ; – )
Nebraska would get more Navy bases with the popular vote, right?
They already have a Navy…
Was that a hint of humor Stan? Excellent!????????????
Well the airforce has trains so why not?
Welfare is NOT unbiblical. Nations are expected to take care of their poor.Sodom and Israel were judged for not doing so. BTW, AFDC was started by FDR in an effort to aid poor white families in Appalachia. Blacks were not included until 1962. There is no possible way that churches could ever support the nation’s poor, none.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Karen hates God,
Striking out at Wilson,
And me and you.
Karen’s points are proven incorrect by several readers, yet she rails even more. Karen is only one of the many needing Christ to heal their wounds and set them free from the chains of our progressive God hating American society. As Advent is upon us, pray for Karen and those like her who do not have the blood of Christ covering them. Pray that they will be drawn to Christ and the foot of the cross.
Karen hates your god like you hate Zeus or Santa. There is a difference between hating a god and hating the ideas that people who believe in said imaginary deity spew forth. Be smart. Tighten it up Dave.
Oh, and mockery is a mighty christian way to bring people to an understanding of the forgiveness off your lord and savior. What gospel advocates that teaching of JC? (and I am pretty sure jesus would want you to tighten up your syllabic verse. Hint: 4 syllables per line. Don’t be lazy and try to cram. It takes away from the impact.)
“Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:5
Rand, you need to return to the foot of the cross also.
Happy Lord’s Day.
Happy to meet you at the cross. I will bring an axe. Torture devices and custom of human sacrifice deserve to be eliminated not celebrated.
An axe?
Wouldn’t a chain saw be faster?! ; – )
Yes, uh, that’s the point…
Rand, didn’t you tell us some time ago that you were raised in the church and then left? Would you put some light on that and give us some insight such as which denomination and such?
Proverbs 3:33-35 33 The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous. 34 He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed. 35 The wise inherit honor, but fools get only shame. Randi, us folks in the plutonium age are not really in any position to throw stones at our forebearers from the “bronze age”. (aka the timeless age) In any case, I think you need to consult your plutonium age “bible”; “Stronger Together: A Blueprint for America’s Future” – September 6, 2016 by Hillary Rodham Clinton (Author),… Read more »
Electoral College: “Settled Law.”
Gravity: “Settled Science.”
; – )
I’m having trouble seeing the wisdom of your objections to a national popular vote. How would it be a terrible tragedy for presidential candidates to ignore Iowa but it’s not a tragedy if they ignore Oregon or Alabama (which they do under our current system)? Furthermore, running for president would continue to be a grueling affair complete with corndogs and fly-over country because the primaries wouldn’t change. And I doubt a presidential candidate is going to ignore every state but California, New York, and Texas when that would open the door for candidates running up the score elsewhere. The only… Read more »
“snooty city folk” are over-rated, and always have been.
The Electoral Collage was set up in the first place, with “snooty city folk” in mind. Like HRC for instance!
Even so, the EC does not prevent other “snooty city folk” from becoming President, aka almost all of them! DJT included! ; – )
No, it was set up with slave states in mind. Without the abominable 3/5 rule they wouldn’t have come into the Union.
So goes the art of compromise huh?
????
Evil compromise…
Gosh Stan, what happened to:
“Stronger together”?
For instance, the USA was allied with Stalin, during WW II.
Jesus even associated with Peter. Peter did improve over time.
Better yet, wouldn’t it be nice if California, Iowa, Alabama, and New York weren’t stuck together in the same governmental structure?
Calexit anyone??
http://redpanels.com/comics/calexit-comic.png
Either way my vote in Alaska isn’t relevant.
Trump won because he won a lot of mid to upper population states. Look at the top ten states by population and Clinton only won 3 of them. Clinton won significantly on the aggregate vote total (2.2 million and counting), but if you lump together populations by state Clinton states only total about 44% of the population. Of the 13 swing states, Clinton underperformed Obama 2012 in every single one except for Arizona. If Clinton had shifted 1% of the vote in the swing states her way, she would have won FL, PA, WI, and MI and would be president… Read more »