Purpose of the Electoral College

I put this in philosophy, thinking it an exercise in political philosophy, so hopefully it is the right place.

Ikari said:

Popularism:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Being held to the many states, not just a few:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Thank you for your reply Ikari.

It has come to my attention that a mod has posted a warning against any discussion about anything other than the top[ic and the EC seems to fit that warning. I would be happy to continue this in some other more appropriate thread.

Click to expand...

It is my contention that the main purpose of the EC was two fold, and that these were spoken to in the Federalist Papers 68 by Hamilton.

1) Protection against Popularism.
2) Ensure the President was beholden to the many states, not just a few.

It is discussed in 68 that the reasons the EC is desirable are that a small number of men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination in regards to the selection of the president. Also, that the President is not beholden to any single State, but the whole of the Union if not a considerable portion there of.

Additionally, I believe this is backed by the fundamental properties of the EC itself. Notably that the EC was constructed such that the electors we're not held to the popular vote of the State they represent and that it was weighted in such a way as one cannot win the Presidency merely by capturing only the most populated States, as demonstrated most recently by the last election.

Furthermore, I contend that these mechanisms are as necessary today as when they were written and that more emphasis should be placed into the original intent.

Ikari said:

It is my contention that the main purpose of the EC was two fold, and that these were spoken to in the Federalist Papers 68 by Hamilton.

1) Protection against Popularism.
2) Ensure the President was beholden to the many states, not just a few.
.

Click to expand...

Could you please quote Federalist 68 parts which you believe support this claim?

haymarket said:

Could you please quote Federalist 68 parts which you believe support this claim?

Click to expand...

Popularism:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Being held to the many states, not just a few:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

How does the EC protect against populism in the modern age?

Ikari said:

Popularism:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Being held to the many states, not just a few:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Click to expand...

I see nothing in there which advocates for a union of small states against larger states. The "single state" referred to could be of any size or population.

haymarket said:

I see nothing in there which advocates for a union of small states against larger states. The "single state" referred to could be of any size or population.

Click to expand...

Ok. It talks about a small number of people most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. That's a protection against popularism. Instead of going strictly from the popular vote, the actual vote for president would be by a small number of people, educated and capable of making a proper decision. Also, the very fact that the EC vote is separate from the popular vote speaks to this dynamic.

It very explicitly states, in regards to the many states vs the few states that the EC will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. Meaning that the president would not be beholden to a few states, but the many. Also evident by the fact that popular vote of the whole US alone cannot elect a president, they must win the majority of the EC votes, which does not mean the majority of the aggregate popular vote.

Ikari said:

Ok. It talks about a small number of people most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. That's a protection against popularism. Instead of going strictly from the popular vote, the actual vote for president would be by a small number of people, educated and capable of making a proper decision. Also, the very fact that the EC vote is separate from the popular vote speaks to this dynamic.

It very explicitly states, in regards to the many states vs the few states that the EC will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. Meaning that the president would not be beholden to a few states, but the many. Also evident by the fact that popular vote of the whole US alone cannot elect a president, they must win the majority of the EC votes, which does not mean the majority of the aggregate popular vote.

Click to expand...

Nothing in Fed 68 says anything about the modernist argument about protecting small states. Nothing.

If you claim otherwise, please produce the relevant passages.

It does however talks about the chief danger from a foreign power trying to install a creature of its own into the White House. And that was completely ignored by the EC meetings. So they utterly and completely failed to do as Hamilton promised was their chief purpose.

MrPeanut said:

How does the EC protect against populism in the modern age?

Click to expand...

The last election did exactly that. The popular vote was disregarded because the EC is supreme.

Assuming we were to use the popular vote, if you look at the red/blue election map, there is a north/south path to bifurcating the USA into east/west with the unrepresented states supplying the food. Those states would be treated as if they were colonies. In addition to that, 49% of the country would be ignored.

haymarket said:

Nothing in Fed 68 says anything about the modernist argument about protecting small states. Nothing.

If you claim otherwise, please produce the relevant passages.

It does however talks about the chief danger from a foreign power trying to install a creature of its own into the White House. And that was completely ignored by the EC meetings. So they utterly and completely failed to do as Hamilton promised was their chief purpose.

Click to expand...

Nothing in anything the funding gathers write speaks to"modernists" terms. This was all written hundreds of years ago.

However,I have cited the relevant sections to speak to the protections against popularism and holding the president to the many states. If you wish to addressthis specific arguments, please do.if you want to argue the effectiveness of then in the modern works, please do.I'll be more than happy to debate.

Ikari said:

Nothing in anything the funding gathers write speaks to"modernists" terms. This was all written hundreds of years ago.

However,I have cited the relevant sections to speak to the protections against popularism and holding the president to the many states. If you wish to addressthis specific arguments, please do.if you want to argue the effectiveness of then in the modern works, please do.I'll be more than happy to debate.

Click to expand...

What you have cited from Federalist 68 DOES NOT SAY anything about protecting small states against larger states.

haymarket said:

What you have cited from Federalist 68 DOES NOT SAY anything about protecting small states against larger states.

Click to expand...

It does:

Being held to the many states, not just a few:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

This says it right there. That a successful candidate for President would have the "esteem and confidence" of the whole union, or a significant portion thereof; instead of just one. This part of his argument is stating that the EC will help prevent a few States from having the majority influence over who is President, since in that case the President needs only to pander to the most populated areas. Instead, it is established to ensure that the President must win a considerable portion of the Union to be a successful candidate for the US.

It's all right there. This is further evident in the actual function of the EC wherein one doesn't necessarily need the popular vote, but the EC which better represents the many States.

You can keep saying "It dies not say that", but you're wrong.

Ikari said:

It does:

Being held to the many states, not just a few:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

This says it right there. That a successful candidate for President would have the "esteem and confidence" of the whole union, or a significant portion thereof; instead of just one. This part of his argument is stating that the EC will help prevent a few States from having the majority influence over who is President, since in that case the President needs only to pander to the most populated areas. Instead, it is established to ensure that the President must win a considerable portion of the Union to be a successful candidate for the US.

It's all right there. This is further evident in the actual function of the EC wherein one doesn't necessarily need the popular vote, but the EC which better represents the many States.

You can keep saying "It dies not say that", but you're wrong.

Click to expand...

What I suspect you are doing is taking language Hamilton wrote and twisting and perverting it to fit the modernist mantra about protecting voters in smaller states when Hamilton does not actually say that is the EC purpose.

If you take the actual words Hamilton said - they readily would fit if applied to a popular vote mechanism since he said

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Click to expand...

No state then or now has enough peoples votes to win an election. Even under a popular vote formula, a candidate would by necessity have to fulfill what Hamilton described winning a considerable portion of the nation.

Why don't you speak to what Hamilton said was the chief danger to our country that the EC was supposed to remedy? The attempt by a foreign adversary to install a a creature of their own in our highest office?

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

Click to expand...

And point out to me evidence that this was dealt with in even one single meeting of the electors in 2016 ? Not all fifty. Not a majority of them. Just show me evidence it was dealt with in one single electors meeting in one single state.

Can you do that to show me the promise of Hamilton and the EC was actually met or at least attempted?

haymarket said:

What I suspect you are doing is taking language Hamilton wrote and twisting and perverting it to fit the modernist mantra about protecting voters in smaller states when Hamilton does not actually say that is the EC purpose.

If you take the actual words Hamilton said - they readily would fit if applied to a popular vote mechanism since he said



No state then or now has enough peoples votes to win an election. Even under a popular vote formula, a candidate would by necessity have to fulfill what Hamilton described winning a considerable portion of the nation.

Why don't you speak to what Hamilton said was the chief danger to our country that the EC was supposed to remedy? The attempt by a foreign adversary to install a a creature of their own in our highest office?

Click to expand...

Why don't you go ahead and make that argument then? You are capable, yes?

And I twisted nothing, it's very clear what Hamilton wrote. The EC will ensure that the President must win a considerable portion of the Union to be a successful candidate, and prevents the office from being dominated by a small number of states.

Ikari said:

Why don't you go ahead and make that argument then? You are capable, yes?

And I twisted nothing, it's very clear what Hamilton wrote. The EC will ensure that the President must win a considerable portion of the Union to be a successful candidate, and prevents the office from being dominated by a small number of states.

Click to expand...

Lincoln did not do that when he won in 1860. An entire portion of the Union would not even put him on the ballot he was so hated.

And a popular vote election would by necessity achieve the same result as a candidate must have support from a vast portion of the nation.

Why don't you speak to what Hamilton said was the chief danger to our country that the EC was supposed to remedy? The attempt by a foreign adversary to install a a creature of their own in our highest office?

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

Click to expand...

And point out to me evidence that this was dealt with in even one single meeting of the electors in 2016 ? Not all fifty. Not a majority of them. Just show me evidence it was dealt with in one single electors meeting in one single state.

Can you do that to show me the promise of Hamilton and the EC was actually met or at least attempted?

haymarket said:

Lincoln did not do that when he won in 1860. An entire portion of the Union would not even put him on the ballot he was so hated.

And a popular vote election would by necessity achieve the same result as a candidate must have support from a vast portion of the nation.

Why don't you speak to what Hamilton said was the chief danger to our country that the EC was supposed to remedy? The attempt by a foreign adversary to install a a creature of their own in our highest office?




And point out to me evidence that this was dealt with in even one single meeting of the electors in 2016 ? Not all fifty. Not a majority of them. Just show me evidence it was dealt with in one single electors meeting in one single state.

Can you do that to show me the promise of Hamilton and the EC was actually met or at least attempted?

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that an elector was bought off by a foreign power? Do you have evidence of that?

Ikari said:

Are you claiming that an elector was bought off by a foreign power? Do you have evidence of that?

Click to expand...

I never made that claim. Why would you ask such a question when I never brought up such a thing?

haymarket said:

I never made that claim. Why would you ask such a question when I never brought up such a thing?

Click to expand...

Because you went off about foreign powers gaining influence over the system, I wasn't sure where you were going with that.

Do you have a point there? Is this a Russia/Trump thing?

Ikari said:

Because you went off about foreign powers gaining influence over the system, I wasn't sure where you were going with that.

Do you have a point there? Is this a Russia/Trump thing?

Click to expand...

Yes - this indeed is the Russian assistance to their preferred candidate Donald Trump in aiding him in his victory just as Hamilton warned us about and promised us the Electoral College would protect us from such a possibility.

Do you have any evidence that even a single state elector meeting considered this in their deliberations as Hamilton wanted them to do?

haymarket said:

Yes - this indeed is the Russian assistance to their preferred candidate Donald Trump in aiding him in his victory just as Hamilton warned us about and promised us the Electoral College would protect us from such a possibility.

Do you have any evidence that even a single state elector meeting considered this in their deliberations as Hamilton wanted them to do?

Click to expand...

There are now many State laws binding the EC vote to the state's popular vote, and much like Jury Nullification, we don't emphasis the importance. Given by how many votes Trump won by, it would have been unprecedented level of faithless electors to have reversed that decision. I mean, if this is still sour grapes about how Trump won, then Hillary should have done a better job. We've had the EC for quite some time, we all know it exists. If someone loses to Donald Trump, I can't think that it is anyone's fault but that of the loser.

And the collusion thing with Trump, I'm not sure that it's saying at all that Russia was able to swing the results of the election; so I don't know what you're going on about on that front.

The EC is possibly a bit out of place in this day and age, but even if you think its a problem, it's far from the biggest problem we have with our system for choosing a president.

I would say that the biggest issue is the 2 party duopoly and the fact that wealthy individuals and corporations basically own that duopoly. Trump is an aberration they surprisingly failed to stop, but he quickly folded his "populist" tent and started working, however clumsily, for the party under who's umbrella he ran.

Ikari said:

There are now many State laws binding the EC vote to the state's popular vote, and much like Jury Nullification, we don't emphasis the importance. Given by how many votes Trump won by, it would have been unprecedented level of faithless electors to have reversed that decision. I mean, if this is still sour grapes about how Trump won, then Hillary should have done a better job. We've had the EC for quite some time, we all know it exists. If someone loses to Donald Trump, I can't think that it is anyone's fault but that of the loser.

And the collusion thing with Trump, I'm not sure that it's saying at all that Russia was able to swing the results of the election; so I don't know what you're going on about on that front.

Click to expand...

I ask you again sir, do you have any evidence that any of the 50 state elector meetings functioned as Hamilton stated they would to protect the nations people from the belief that a foreign adversary may have attempted to install a creature of their own in our highest office?

haymarket said:

I ask you again sir, do you have any evidence that any of the 50 state elector meetings functioned as Hamilton stated they would to protect the nations people from the belief that a foreign adversary may have attempted to install a creature of their own in our highest office?

Click to expand...

Neither have I and "evidence" that this occurred than you have "evidence" it didn't. What's your point? That because I'm not a mind reader, we should do away with the EC? Is that really what's going on? Quit beating around the bush and come out with it already.

Ikari said:

Neither have I and "evidence" that this occurred than you have "evidence" it didn't. What's your point? That because I'm not a mind reader, we should do away with the EC? Is that really what's going on? Quit beating around the bush and come out with it already.

Click to expand...

Evidence can only be supplied for an event WHICH DID OCCUR. Once cannot present evidence for an event WHICH DID NOT OCCUR.

Do you comprehend the difference?

There is not one single report from any media source that any one of the fifty state elector meetings discussed or considered or debated or even mentioned the concern that the Russians were behind the election of Donald Trump. Not a single one.

Alexander Hamilton, in selling the EC to the people as part of the proposed Constitution, told us in Federalist 68 that we should allow these elite special people with special abilities to select the president because they could protect us from a foreign adversary who would do this. In point of fact, Hamilton described it as the CHIEF threat to our nation via election.

So what we have in 2016 is the will of the people thwarted by and Electoral College which FAILED to function and protect us as Hamilton told us was the advantage of that process.

It became a lose/lose proposition. The American people gave up their ability to elect a president under the guise of protection of the Electoral College but in 2016 we did not receive the protection that was promised to us in exchange for our direct election.

Cannot you see that?

haymarket said:

Evidence can only be supplied for an event WHICH DID OCCUR. Once cannot present evidence for an event WHICH DID NOT OCCUR.

Do you comprehend the difference?

There is not one single report from any media source that any one of the fifty state elector meetings discussed or considered or debated or even mentioned the concern that the Russians were behind the election of Donald Trump. Not a single one.

Alexander Hamilton, in selling the EC to the people as part of the proposed Constitution, told us in Federalist 68 that we should allow these elite special people with special abilities to select the president because they could protect us from a foreign adversary who would do this. In point of fact, Hamilton described it as the CHIEF threat to our nation via election.

So what we have in 2016 is the will of the people thwarted by and Electoral College which FAILED to function and protect us as Hamilton told us was the advantage of that process.

It became a lose/lose proposition. The American people gave up their ability to elect a president under the guise of protection of the Electoral College but in 2016 we did not receive the protection that was promised to us in exchange for our direct election.

Cannot you see that?

Click to expand...

First off, in this case, you can prove the "negative" with a complete set of data. It would be the same set, in fact, necessary to prove the "positive". Because we would need to know the thoughts of all the electors to know if they did or didn't consider their duty in protecting the Republic against an unfit candidate. Thus, in this instance, to prove that it did occur has the same ability as to prove that it did not. You are only deflecting because, like me, you are not a mind reader and thus do not have that set of data. Do YOU comprehend that?

The EC did what the EC was supposed to do. It helps to protect against popularism and ensures that the system does not become dominated by a few, most populated states. Hillary messed up, should have been easy to beat Trump, but didn't. That's her bad. I know you're upset at that, lots of people are, but it doesn't mean the EC didn't do its job. It just means that Hillary couldn't do her job.

Furthermore, it was not through the EC that there was any foreign intervention. They way that the EC helps to limit the ability of foreign interference is that the electors are changed out, and not announced until much later, thus without some stable office or permanent electors, it's harder to insert agents or bribe electors. Not only that, but what we have now is perhaps some collusion but no proof that the election results were changed by Russia. Do you have that proof?

The reasons that the EC was constructed are still needed, and was demonstrated in this last election. California shouldn't have the final say in the President, the President must represent the whole Union or at least appeal to a large proportion of it. That's more than just the People (as we are not a direct democracy), but also the States. The concerns of Wyoming shouldn't be overruled just because they do not have as many people as LA. Without the EC, the rural areas of the US will lose their influence in the Presidential elections.