Humanities desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 15

Electoral college

The President of United States gets elected by the popular vote and as well as electoral college. How about the governors of each state? Do they get electoral college or that is only for the Presidential election? Donmust90 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmust90: The president is only elected by the electoral college. Governors are elected by popular vote. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See United States Electoral College. ~~The US Pres and Vice Pres are the only offices in the US that are elected by the EC~~. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi has an electoral vote system for governor.—eric 02:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fascinating! Apparently, to win the governorship outright, you need an (absolute) majority of both the popular and electoral vote. If no one gets both, then the House of Representatives decides (much as it does at the Federal level, except that in the Federal case the vote is state-by-state in the House).

In the 1999 Mississippi gubernatorial election, neither Ronnie Musgrove nor Michael Parker got either majority (Musgrove got more votes than Parker, but not a majority, and they split the electoral vote evenly). The House chose Musgrove on party lines. --Trovatore (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect an ulterior motive, to keep the party in power despite the will of the people. Depending on when this system was set up, it may have been designed to protect Republicans recently, Democrats during the Solid South period, or even some extinct party before that. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'd be right: 1890.—eric 01:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our article does not mention the change in manner of electing the governor, but here shows 1817, 1832, 1868, all had "qualified electors of the State."—eric 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth pointing out, for the benefit of anyone confused, that the word "elector" in this context simply means "person entitled to vote". It doesn't refer to "electoral votes", which seem to have shown up for the first time in the 1890 constitution. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's to give more power to landowners (and, surprise, there weren't a lot of non-white landowners in Mississippi). Remember, you used to have to be a landowner to vote at all in most states, including Mississippi. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to be a landowner to vote at all, then it's unclear why an electoral college would increase the power of landowners. If you don't have to own land, then it's still unclear. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there does seem to be at least a missing step in your explanation.

For what it's worth, not even the 1817 constitution has an explicit property requirement. It does say that you have to be enrolled in the militia (unless exempted from military service) or have paid a state or county tax. Presumably the tax payment is a proxy for landholding, but by my reading you can get around it by being in the militia or being exempt from the militia:

Section 1. Every free, white male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, who shall be a citizen of the United States, and shall have resided in this State one year next preceding an election, and the last six months within the county, city, or town, in which he offers to vote, and shall be enrolled in the militia thereof, except exempted by law from military service; or, having the aforesaid qualifications of citizenship and residence, shall have paid a State or county tax, shall be deemed a qualified elector: no elector shall be entitled to vote, except in the county, city or town (entitled to separate representation) in which he may reside at the time of the election.

That said, this page does claim that the 1832 constitution removed the property requirement, so maybe I'm missing something. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the Constitution of Mississippi article. If it's incorrect that Mississippi didn't have a property requirement, it needs to be corrected. Mississippi didn't have an "electoral college" before the 1890 Constitution. My point was, now that universal white male suffrage was infeasible to roll back, the state's wealthy landowners wanted to ensure they had extra say in who was Governor. Fun fact, the 1817 Constitution required the Governor either own six hundred acres of land, or land worth $2,000. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(It was actually universal male suffrage, not "white male", as this was after the 15th Amendment.) That's entirely plausible, except for one thing, which is that you haven't explained in what way the electoral vote actually gave the wealthy landowners an extra say. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While blacks may have legally been entitled to vote, any attempting to do so in that era would possibly be murdered by the Ku Klux Klan. There were also various methods of legally excluding blacks, like literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather rules (can't vote unless your grandfather voted), and excluding those convicted of a crime, and making sure that any black who attempted to register was so convicted. Or the registrar could simply "lose" the registration. See Jim Crow laws and black codes. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no question, the reality was different from the formal law. Not really the point. 47 has still not explained how the electoral vote was supposed to enhance the power of landowners. Could be true; hasn't been explained. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, indirectly, by throwing it back to the legislature to decide who wins, that gives the wealthy, which would be almost exclusively landowners in that era, more of an opportunity to influence the outcome, by bribery (which in modern times we call campaign contributions). SinisterLefty (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume that if 47 had meant "the wealthy", he/she would have said "the wealthy". The specific term was "landowners", and the connection with the electoral vote has still not been explained.

(By the way, the original 1890 scheme, if I've understood correctly, chose the governor by electoral vote exclusively, which does not seem that it would favor sending the vote back to the House. If anything, it would be the opposite, as a minor candidate capable of preventing a popular majority would probably not pick up any electoral votes, so there would still likely be an electoral majority. The current rule, where you have to win an absolute majority both of the popular and electoral vote to avoid the election going to the House, is the result of a 1982 amendment.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If one county has fewer people residing in it than another, but both have equal votes in the state Senate, the people living in the less populous county have more political power, and all the more so if someone has to win a majority of counties to become Governor. This has gained more attention in modern times in the national context; people in less populous states have more say in the national government, because each state gets two Senators and at least three electoral votes no matter what (see Wyoming Rule for some context). In the context of the Jim Crow South, this was even more magnified, because rural areas were largely populated by black sharecroppers who couldn't vote. This meant all the "political power" of the land was exclusively given to the white landowners. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The state Senate is irrelevant. All of this goes through the state House of Representatives, both the so-called "electoral votes" (they aren't really electoral votes exactly because there aren't any "electors" except the ordinary voters) and the backup plan if no one gets a majority.

The number of electoral votes assigned to a "county or district" is equal to the number of House members that district is entitled to. I haven't been able to check this directly, but I expect that's apportioned by population. (I would be interested to hear more information on this in either direction.)

If anything, this would privilege the most populous districts, because apparently their electoral votes get assigned by the unit rule. Therefore if two districts are both on the fence, you have more probability of swinging the election by your vote if you live in the more populous one. --Trovatore (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Vermont, a candidate for governor must receive a majority of the popular vote (i.e., more than 50%). If not, then the state legislature elects the governor. The last time this happened was in 2014. --118.160.98.98 (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely patterned after the Presidential election, in which, if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (currently 270), Congress elects the President and Vice President. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The President and Vice President aren't elected by "the popular vote" at all. Each state as well as D.C. gets to pick electors; it's up to them how to do so. It just so happens they all currently assign them to the winner of the statewide vote, except for Nebraska and Maine which use the "district method". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the popular vote in each state elects the electors, not the president directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That misses the point. Each state produces their alloted electors. HOW they do that is up to the state. They've settled on forms of popular vote, but it isn't all the same. For example, one state might opt for a winner-take-all election while another state divies up the electors based on the percentage of vote. But, there is no requirement of a popular vote from the Constitution. The state could flip a coin and use that to choose the elector (and, a coin flip is part of some state's election systems). As for how governors are elected - again, it is up to the state. There is no Constitutional requirement demanding election by popular vote. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think the OP's question has long since been answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol

Andy Warhol wore wigs, Google says "Andy always wore those silver wigs, but he never admitted it were wigs. One of his hairdressers has told me lately that he had his wigs regularly cut, like it were real hair. When the wig was trimmed, he put on another next month as if his hair had grown" Why? Was he bald? What did his own hair look like and did he colour his eyebrows? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of continuing to ask new questions, how about you go back to the science desk and address issues raised about your Canary Islands question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question: Tenerife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer, if he wore them, is that the wigs were purely decorative, as were the powdered wigs of the Founding Fathers. As an artist, he also could consider his own body to be a "blank canvas". SinisterLefty (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol's Wig - A Defining Art Object (from the blog "Hair is For Pulling") has some interesting info on Warhol's "hundreds of wigs" As for the evolution of his wigs: "Warhol began to wear wigs in the 1950s to cover up his early male pattern baldness and gradually graying hair. (...) The first wig was a mousy brown, but he moved into yellow-blond, then platinum, and ultimately settled on shades of grey/silver, wearing the wigs with his existing darker hair sticking out at the bottom. Warhol settled on grey because if you always appear old no one knows how old you really are."

There's some interesting stuff there, including the fact that Warhol gave one of his wigs to Jean-Michel Basquiat, as a gift, in 1985, and that one of the many many Warhol wigs sold for $10,800 at a Christie's auction in 2006.

But I found nothing on what one of his hairdressers told you lately about having the wigs cut, and I found nothing on his eyebrows there either. I still recommend reading the blog, and a lot of it is referenced. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inca Pots and Jars

Please see the link here... https://americanindian.si.edu/inkaroad/inkauniverse/inkaroadexpansion/road-integration.html Please would someone provide further information on the pottery at the bottom of the page. While suitable for storing water and other liquids, it seems to me that the spike (for want of a better term) would make it very awkward to put the vessel down. Most cups and jars today have a flat base to allow the jar to stand with stability. What was the purpose of the shape shown? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of continuing to ask new questions, how about you go back to the science desk and address issues raised about your Canary Islands question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question: Tenerife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This site[1] states the pointed base made for easier pouring. We don't have an article for Arybalo, but we have Greek Aryballos, i don't know if the names are related.—eric 12:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eric. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, aryballos does seem like the most common name: archive search.—eric 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed bases are stronger than flat bases. A flat base is weak, the corners especially so (modern wine bottles have their dimpled base to avoid this). Also they're easier to store for bulk transport (this can be seen well with amphorae, particularly in shipwrecks. They're also more stable on a flat surface, when that flat surface is no more than an earth floor and the shallow spike can form its own recess. Flat bases to vessels don't make much sense until tables are in widespread use. Many pre-furniture cultures still use many vessels where they're hung from cords, and these have loops and knobs which can support that. A heavy vessel used for pouring is also easier to handle if it has suspension loops which can still support it when tilted for pouring, unlike a flat base. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! Thanks Andy. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]