Dems want a ‘democracy’ where the majority lords it over everyone else.

[Desk trauma]

Nope, read the messages.

Read them, the actual it’s a republic is pedantic tosh.

 

[RDKirk]

From the article:



This is such a smoothbrained take on the electoral college. The popular vote doesn’t give a huge advantage to big states; in fact, today it does just the opposite. In 2020, Trump got 6 million votes in California- more than any other single state, and more than the 15 smallest states combined. And all of those electoral votes went to Biden because the Dems won the majority in CA.

The logic behind the electoral college only holds true if the voters in a state vote as nearly a monolith and if the population disparity between states is only modest. If either one of those is not true, the electoral college silences minority-party voters.

The reason there is an Electoral College is because the Founding Fathers viewed the states as little semi-autonomous nations rather like the EU today. Thus, all elections for federal offices is state-level voting. The Electoral College is a clever way to make the vote for the Presidency also a state-level vote.

 

[RDKirk]

Aren’t the largest cities in each state currently dominating how the electoral college votes are allocated? With few exceptions the majority vote in each state receives all the state’s electoral votes.

It still maintains a balance of highly populated states like New York against less populated states like Wyoming. And remember that the more populated states still wield the power in the House of Representatives.

 

[RDKirk]

I think democracy is designed for the majority to set the nation's political agenda while also respecting the rules of the Constitution so that if either side is in power, there are universal rights that cannot be voted away by the majority.

Given a majority party holding the presidency and the Congress long enough (twelve years should be long enough), the Constitution can easily become only what that party wants it to be.

 

[RDKirk]

No, it really wasn't. The Electoral College was largely designed because of slavery -- because the authors of the Constitution needed a way to count all the slaves "votes" without them actually being able to vote (the 3/5ths rule). The idea of selling it as a way of amplifying the power of smaller states wasn't actually "invented" until they were trying to get states like Maryland and Delaware to vote to ratify the Constitution.

Having the 3/5ths rule for that, they didn't need the Electoral College. They expected the 3/5th rule to be eventually "overcome by events," as they expected slavery to eventually die away. The Electoral College was intended to be permanent.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Having the 3/5ths rule for that, they didn't need the Electoral College. They expected the 3/5th rule to be eventually "overcome by events," as they expected slavery to eventually die away. The Electoral College was intended to be permanent.

The 3/5ths rule only applied to representation in the House (and direct taxes). The *only* way it could accrue positively to the slavers was to count votes tied to the size of the House. (The EC or election by the House itself works in this fashion.)

 

[RDKirk]

The 3/5ths rule only applied to representation in the House (and direct taxes). The *only* way it could accrue positively to the slavers was to count votes tied to the size of the House. (The EC or election by the House itself works in this fashion.)

The slave states didn't get what they wanted...which was for slaves to be fully counted for House representation. Nor did the free states get what they wanted...which was for slaves not to be counted at all. But as I said, it was expected that slavery would eventually wither away, so that compromise was seen as ultimately a temporary device.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The slave states didn't get what they wanted...which was for slaves to be fully counted for House representation. Nor did the free states get what they wanted...which was for slaves not to be counted at all. But as I said, it was expected that slavery would eventually wither away, so that compromise was seen as ultimately a temporary device.

They got 3/5ths more than nothing.

 

[BCP1928]

The reason there is an Electoral College is because the Founding Fathers viewed the states as little semi-autonomous nations rather like the EU today. Thus, all elections for federal offices is state-level voting. The Electoral College is a clever way to make the vote for the Presidency also a state-level vote.

In effect, the state governments elect the President, with the advice of the voters of that state, but it's not a direct vote. Similarly, the state legislators elected the Senators from each state, again not a direct vote. Originally, the only direct vote for Federal office was for the House of Representatives.

 

[Pommer]

The reason there is an Electoral College is because the Founding Fathers viewed the states as little semi-autonomous nations rather like the EU today. Thus, all elections for federal offices is state-level voting. The Electoral College is a clever way to make the vote for the Presidency also a state-level vote.

And the Constitution is silent (so far as I know) in opinion as to how “the several states” should go about selecting their slate of Electoral College voters. (There’s never been a “need” for a popular vote, except for tradition’s sake, then again, what’s more Conservative than having a King!?

 

[SimplyMe]

The 3/5ths rule only applied to representation in the House (and direct taxes). The *only* way it could accrue positively to the slavers was to count votes tied to the size of the House. (The EC or election by the House itself works in this fashion.)

Yes, the 3/5ths rule needed a way to apply to Presidential voting -- hence the birth of the Electoral College. Without the 3/5ths rule there was no purpose for the Electoral College. Instead, history tells us that the President would have likely been chosen by popular vote, though there were some that wanted Congress to select the President.

 

[Belk]

The reason there is an Electoral College is because the Founding Fathers viewed the states as little semi-autonomous nations rather like the EU today. Thus, all elections for federal offices is state-level voting. The Electoral College is a clever way to make the vote for the Presidency also a state-level vote.

I believe they also saw it as a bulwark against a demagogue.

 

[JSRG]

And the Constitution is silent (so far as I know) in opinion as to how “the several states” should go about selecting their slate of Electoral College voters. (There’s never been a “need” for a popular vote, except for tradition’s sake, then again, what’s more Conservative than having a King!?

The Constitution leaves the choosing of electors entirely up to each state; they can have them chosen by a popular election, chosen by the legislature, chosen by district, have mini-elections where people voted for the electors themselves rather than any candidate, or even require the candidates to go on Jeopardy and give electors to whoever won. It's why in Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court concluded that states had the power to pass laws requiring the electors to vote for their pledged candidate, because states had basically total power to decide how to choose and direct them.

 

[JSRG]

Yes, the 3/5ths rule needed a way to apply to Presidential voting -- hence the birth of the Electoral College. Without the 3/5ths rule there was no purpose for the Electoral College. Instead, history tells us that the President would have likely been chosen by popular vote, though there were some that wanted Congress to select the President.

While the 3/5th rule was obviously an incentive for the electoral college, I don't think one can say there was no purpose otherwise. As is basically stated in The Federalist Papers that explained the reason for it, there was desire to avoid the kind of tumult and disorder that a national election could cause, by making the decision be made by intelligent individuals (chosen by the people) who would debate the issue with each other and select the President. Granted, the Federalist Papers were written with the goal of convincing people in New York the Constitution was a great idea so there's some obvious propaganda here (notably, it doesn't mention the slavery issue, which no doubt wouldn't have played well in New York), but the reasons given in it do seem to be on their mind. The citizenry would choose people they trusted from among themselves who would go off to discuss the matter with other people chosen by the citizenry, then they'd cast their votes for President.

This method of electing people to go off and debate with other people on who to become president prior to voting on it themselves was actually used for most of US history... within the political parties. Before our modern primary system happened, the local parties would elect delegates to the party convention, and then they'd go there and do the debating and the voting for the presidential candidate. While this did have some disadvantages, it did make it so the candidates had to convince committed, knowledgeable members of the party that they were the best person to run for President. The primary system has rather different requirements, as this article (which I have some disagreements with but mostly brings up some good points) notes:

In order to succeed in caucuses, candidates have to make a strong, deep case why they’re the right candidate to carry the party banner, and they need to command a loyal, competent organization.

Primaries are a lot simpler. To win a primary you need only two things: high name recognition and massive amounts of money. You aren’t trying to persuade deep, thoughtful, experienced partisans that your positions are right on the merits and that they can win over a general electorate. In a primary, you’re trying to excite/infuriate low-knowledge, low-interest voters so much that they’re willing to go stand in a booth for 12 seconds to fill out a ballot for you. Just like in the general election, primaries are more often decided by gaffes and memes than by actual substance. In a primary, the soundbite is king. Also: money. Gobs of money. You need to plaster your face on every gas pump ad screen from Dixville Notch to Seabrook Beach so those couch potatoes know who to vote when they roll themselves to the polling station.

So the idea of the electoral college being a shield against the kinds of issues a popular election can cause made some sense, and indeed the convention system did seem to function as such for the parties. A point to consider for those who hate Trump: Trump would have never gotten the Republican nomination in a caucus-based system like that, but thanks to the switch to primaries, he was able to cash in on his name recognition, money, and sound bytes to win the nomination. This is a case in point as to how they could have really been onto something with wanting intermediaries in choosing the President via the electoral college.

Of course, in practice, the electoral college never worked that way. Political parties emerged and the electors, rather than having any discussions or doing any analysis, became robots in short order; all decisions about who to vote for were made before the electors were chosen. It worked within political parties in choosing candidates because everyone was on the same basic page in regards to ideology (being in the same party) but it doesn't work in the electoral college where that restriction is removed. But the fact they failed miserably in accomplishing their goal doesn't mean that wasn't a goal, which was a goal that wasn't dependent on any 3/5 compromise. It's a bit amusing to look at Elbridge Gerry's concerns that in the electoral college, 19 times out of 20 no one would get a majority and the House of Representatives would have to settle it; what he was worried about would happen almost all of the time ended up happening only twice so far.

Another thing to note about the electoral college was that it worked far better in federalism than a popular vote. A popular vote would require a lot more rules and regulations by the federal congress on how it's to be conducted, while the electoral college leaves how to do just about everything up to the states. The biggest opposition to the Constitution was fear of the federal government having too much power, so ensuring that the states were the ones to decide how the presidential election was run (which a popular vote could have threatened) was a real incentive.

To a certain extent, I feel like I might be in agreement with your conclusion; if the slavery issue (namely, the slaveholding states not being able to have as big of a national voice because so much of their population can't vote) wasn't a thing, that would remove an impetus for the electoral college. The other reasons might not be regarded as enough. On the other hand, it might've ended up as the case anyway. While some wanted the legislature to elect the President (and some countries do this today), others--including Madison--were opposed on the idea that the President shouldn't be beholden to another branch of government. The electoral college still might have been chosen as a way to avoid what were seen as issues of a popular election while still having the President elected by a group other than the federal legislature.

So tl;dr, while I agree that slavery was a reason for the electoral college, I disagree it was the only reason and think it's possible that even had slavery not been an issue, that they would have still done it anyway as a comrpomise between the popular election faction and the legislature faction. Probably didn't need to write all that, but sometimes I just like to hear myself talk.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, the 3/5ths rule needed a way to apply to Presidential voting -- hence the birth of the Electoral College. Without the 3/5ths rule there was no purpose for the Electoral College. Instead, history tells us that the President would have likely been chosen by popular vote, though there were some that wanted Congress to select the President.

No, history says no such thing. The compromise of how slaves would be apportioned for House representation had nothing to do with the Electoral College or vice-versa.

 

[RDKirk]

I believe they also saw it as a bulwark against a demagogue.

Only to the extent that election of the president was held to a state-level selection, as it was for every other office. Each semi-autonomous state handled all its own selection processes.

 

[Adam56]

Pfft. Your minority rule is two wolves and a flock of lambs deciding on dinner.

Pfft = you’re salty small states have power.

 

[Adam56]

Read them, the actual it’s a republic is pedantic tosh.

“Pedantic tosh”

 

[Desk trauma]

“Pedantic tosh”

Correct.

 

[Pommer]

No, history says no such thing. The compromise of how slaves would be apportioned for House representation had nothing to do with the Electoral College or vice-versa.

I had been under the impression that the number of Electoral College votes a state received was inexplicably tied to the number of its congressional representatives, am I recollecting incorrectly?