• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What to do about the election of the President?

JasperL said:
Right, I understand the math and that it very slightly in practice increases the influence for smaller states. I've just never read any informed analysis of the time that attributes more than a bit part to that small extra influence for small states in the reasons for the electoral college. The math makes it clear the big benefit of the EC versus popular vote was to slave states. That might not have been THE REASON, but the slave states made it really unthinkable to have a popular vote - they'd never have signed on because it would cede enormous additional power to 'free states' - and so a direct election wasn't (from what I read) ever on the table, understandably.

As far as I can tell the 'protect small states' theory is a modern day myth, but I'm willing to learn if you have any reading on it!

IMO a much better reason to KEEP the electoral college is the winner take all method of allocating the electoral college puts a premium on swing states with a closely divided population, as opposed to conservatives running up the score in red states and liberals out in CA and NY getting their already committed voters out in BIGGER force. The advantage there is the candidates to win 'purple' states can't be too partisan - it's a moderating influence because it requires the winner to attract those 'middle' voters in the most closely divided (i.e. moderate) states....

It's not a benefit to Tennessee either way - we're reliably red now so get just about no attention in the general election, and we're an average size state that doesn't benefit much if at all from the electoral college. My own preference, as I said, is probably to keep the EC but go to RCV - that latter will do more good than eliminating the EC, and can happen without a constitutional amendment...
Click to expand...

All of this, you must remember, was occurring simultaneously during the Constitutional Convention. It arose during discussion leading to the Great Compromise of 1787, where not only was the Congress split into two houses, but also how many Senators and Representatives would come from each State, how Blacks would be counted, and how many Electors would exist. It is all part of the same tapestry, in order to get all the States on board.

Delegates from the smaller states argued that, despite their lower populations, their states held an equal legal status to that of the larger states, and that proportional representation would be unfair to them.
Click to expand...
https://www.thoughtco.com/great-compromise-of-1787-3322289

[T]the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, which devised the electoral college system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.
Click to expand...
https://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college

One cannot presume that the concerns which led to the Great Compromise had no effect on the creation and composition of the Electoral College as well. Small and Medium States wanted to make sure they were not subordinate to the Large States, and this was a principle issue throughout the creation of the Constitution. You can find this in pretty much every scholarly review of the Convention and the final decisions reached on each issue.
 
Last edited:
Tennyson said:
I said no such thing. All I did was put 68 into context.
Click to expand...

No, you’ve ignored or sidestepped the point of 68; the main point being fear of a unqualified, foreign controlled, demagogue becoming president.
 
StuPedaso said:
No, you’ve ignored or sidestepped the point of 68; the main point being fear of a unqualified, foreign controlled, demagogue becoming president.
Click to expand...

I have not. I stated that I could agree with it, but I also put it into context.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
I like most of what you are saying. This will never work because it would be too hard for the rich and powerful to own all the candidates. The rich and powerful fund both parties and don't want some candidate of the people to win. Until Trump came along we were sure that either a democrat or a republican would become president and would control congress. With your system independents could get a lot of support without fear of throwing away your vote. That is just not going to fly with the rich and powerful who own our government.
Click to expand...

It's definitely really good for independents, so I agree with most of that (not sure about the Trump comment....).

A good example is Maine passed RCV by voter referendum, and the GOP (the party in power) then passed a law effectively overruling the people, and LePage has done all he can to thwart it. So the people have to vote to try to overrule the new law... Frankly the dishonest way the GOP with Democratic help has tried to overrule the people should make most voters eager to get RCV. When the powerful get threatened, and they are by RCV, is when you know it's likely good for the electorate, and it doesn't matter if you're right or left wing.

Story here
 
Tennyson said:
I have not. I stated that I could agree with it, but I also put it into context.
Click to expand...

No, you're sidestepping "Hamilton's" argument for an Electoral College.

Tennyson said:
Hamilton had zero input in the Constitution
Click to expand...

Then why are the Federalist Papers so revered by Constitutional scholars?
 
Last edited:
StuPedaso said:
No, you're sidestepping "Hamilton's" argument for an Electoral College.
Click to expand...

No I am not. You seem to believe that Hamilton wrote the Constitution's Electoral College clause then defined it in 68.

I challenge you to provide one clause in the Constitution that can be attributed to Hamilton and I challenge you to tell me who Hamilton wrote 68 to.
 
Tennyson said:
You seem to believe that Hamilton wrote the Constitution's Electoral College clause then defined it in 68.
Click to expand...

No I don't.

Tennyson said:
I challenge you to provide one clause in the Constitution that can be attributed to Hamilton and I challenge you to tell me who Hamilton wrote 68 to.
Click to expand...

If Hamilton is so insignificant why are the Federalist Papers so revered by Constitutional Scholars?

"MY" original point was this past Electoral College failed in their duty to protect us from the likes of tRump, and cited FP 68. You've only been able to defend your umbrage to that by going off on a tangent about Hamilton's involvement in writing the Constitution. Which has nothing to do with 68 or why the Electoral College was adopted.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
All of this, you must remember, was occurring simultaneously during the Constitutional Convention. It arose as part of the Great Compromise of 1787, where not only was the Congress split into two houses, but also how many Senators and Representatives would come from each State, how Blacks would be counted, and how many Electors would exist. It is all part of the same tapestry, in order to get all the States on board.

One cannot presume that the concerns which led to the Great Compromise had no effect on the creation and composition of the Electoral College as well. Small and Medium States wanted to make sure they were not subordinate to the Large States, and this was a principle issue throughout the creation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Again, I just have read nothing by informed historians that it was a 'small state/big state' issue. It objectively was far more 'slave state/free state' which made direct elections off the table, period.

At any rate, whining about the EC is IMO just unproductive whining and not a good strategy for anyone, especially Democrats, because it would take a constitutional amendment to change, and that ain't happening anytime soon. Soto my left leaning friends out there, deal with it and quit your whining Democrats. Win with the rules we have, don't wish for different rules! ;)

So I'd rather focus on things that CAN change, and RCV just requires the vote of the legislature - normal stuff - and can happen at the state or local or federal level, so no need to do a HUGE change all at once. And it is good for anyone - just as helpful to libertarians as Green Party or whoever is fed up with the iron grip of the two party system.
 
StuPedaso said:
No I don't.



If Hamilton is so insignificant why are the Federalist Papers so revered by Constitutional Scholars?
Click to expand...

Hamilton was instrumental in getting New York to ratify the Constitution, not in framing the Constitution. I doubt that you can find a credible scholar to state otherwise.
 
JasperL said:
Again, I just have read nothing by informed historians that it was a 'small state/big state' issue. It objectively was far more 'slave state/free state' which made direct elections off the table, period.

At any rate, whining about the EC is IMO just unproductive whining and not a good strategy for anyone, especially Democrats, because it would take a constitutional amendment to change, and that ain't happening anytime soon. Soto my left leaning friends out there, deal with it and quit your whining Democrats. Win with the rules we have, don't wish for different rules! ;)

So I'd rather focus on things that CAN change, and RCV just requires the vote of the legislature - normal stuff - and can happen at the state or local or federal level, so no need to do a HUGE change all at once. And it is good for anyone - just as helpful to libertarians as Green Party or whoever is fed up with the iron grip of the two party system.
Click to expand...

The Philadelphia Convention came to a standstill over big state vs small state. If not for the Conneticut Compromise, the convention would have disbanded.
 
JimHackerMP said:
And how many Republicans actually voted for Trump? Can you find the percentage? It wasn't even close to a majority if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Forty-five percent (actually more like 47%) IS pretty close to a majority.
This is a POTUS election, and 47 percent is a lot of Republicans.
 
Tennyson said:
Hamilton was instrumental in getting New York to ratify the Constitution, not in framing the Constitution. I doubt that you can find a credible scholar to state otherwise.
Click to expand...

FP 68 is most quoted when defending the Electoral College, it just is. I'm not really sure what your argument is anymore but The Electoral College exists to protect us from unqualified, demagogues that might be influenced by foreign governments or agents.

:2wave: (<-that means I'm done) Have fun!
 
StuPedaso said:
FP 68 is most quoted when defending the Electoral College, it just is. I'm not really sure what your argument is anymore but The Electoral College exists to protect us from unqualified, demagogues that might be influenced by foreign governments or agents.

:2wave: (<-that means I'm done) Have fun!
Click to expand...

The Electoral College was created to protect small states. When a scholar opines regarding the Electoral College, they use the debates at the Philadelphia Convention and the states' ratifying conventions.
 
Tennyson said:
The Philadelphia Convention came to a standstill over big state vs small state. If not for the Conneticut Compromise, the convention would have disbanded.
Click to expand...

But the issue wasn't settled with that compromise, which was about the Senate and House - it was much later, from what I've read. And the Senate is really where small states are protected, not the EC, which has failed if that's the goal in 53 of 58 elections. If you've got some reading that the primary or even important reason for the EC was big state/small state, I'm open to learning but I've never seen it.

It seems obvious to me that the current alternative - popular vote - was obviously a non-starter and never considered because the slave states would be put at a HUGE disadvantage, so if you want to assign 'protecting some block of states' interests' on the table, that's the big one.

At any rate, I just don't see the benefit in worrying about something that's not going to change anytime soon. It's like worrying about the 2 per state Senate. Them's the rules! Deal with them!
 
First hit from Google when searching “Why does the Electoral College exist”

“The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. ... The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.”

Why the Electoral College
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
But the issue wasn't settled with that compromise, which was about the Senate and House - it was much later, from what I've read. And the Senate is really where small states are protected, not the EC, which has failed if that's the goal in 53 of 58 elections. If you've got some reading that the primary or even important reason for the EC was big state/small state, I'm open to learning but I've never seen it.

It seems obvious to me that the current alternative - popular vote - was obviously a non-starter and never considered because the slave states would be put at a HUGE disadvantage, so if you want to assign 'protecting some block of states' interests' on the table, that's the big one.

At any rate, I just don't see the benefit in worrying about something that's not going to change anytime soon. It's like worrying about the 2 per state Senate. Them's the rules! Deal with them!
Click to expand...

A good place to start is July 19th at the Philadelphia Convention. The theme going forward was small states' represention.
 
Tennyson said:
The Electoral College was created to protect small states. When a scholar opines regarding the Electoral College, they use the debates at the Philadelphia Convention and the states' ratifying conventions.
Click to expand...

I've just never read any historian argue that the primary reason for the EC was to protect small states. Some argue it was to protect slave states, which is clearly DID, but never to protect small states. And if that was the goal it was only a very small victory for small states because the big states did and still do dominate the EC - using Senators just slightly increases the influence of a small state. So it seems odd the primary purpose even COULD have been protecting small states, because it didn't...
 
Tennyson said:
A good place to start is July 19th at the Philadelphia Convention. The theme going forward was small states' represention.
Click to expand...

OK, I don't know what you want me to read about a discussion that didn't have anything to do with the Electoral College. If you have something specific, quote it, or quote a historian making the argument you're making with a reference to the debate about the EC, not the House and Senate.

And a far BIGGER theme throughout the entire process was slavery, which you've refused to address at all in this discussion. The EC was just objectively, the math, a far bigger deal for slave states than small states.
 
JasperL said:
I've just never read any historian argue that the primary reason for the EC was to protect small states. Some argue it was to protect slave states, which is clearly DID, but never to protect small states. And if that was the goal it was only a very small victory for small states because the big states did and still do dominate the EC - using Senators just slightly increases the influence of a small state. So it seems odd the primary purpose even COULD have been protecting small states, because it didn't...
Click to expand...

Primary may be a strong word. The disdain for democracy was pretty high as well. Moreover, the theme of small state vs big state never dissipated.
 
JasperL said:
OK, I don't know what you want me to read about a discussion that didn't have anything to do with the Electoral College. If you have something specific, quote it, or quote a historian making the argument you're making with a reference to the debate about the EC, not the House and Senate.

And a far BIGGER theme throughout the entire process was slavery, which you've refused to address at all in this discussion. The EC was just objectively, the math, a far bigger deal for slave states than small states.
Click to expand...

For the sake of context, I usually eschew snippets/quotes. And I will never post anyone else's opinion as that would be a proxy argument.

Slavery was not that relevant at the Philadelphia Convention.

The EC had more of a negative impact on the slave states as they were larger, especially Vinginia.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Thats one of the most ignorant statements that I have read lately on here. You might want to compare what we have now and what it started out as.
Click to expand...

Feel free to point out the inaccuracy.
 
JasperL said:
It's definitely really good for independents, so I agree with most of that (not sure about the Trump comment....).

A good example is Maine passed RCV by voter referendum, and the GOP (the party in power) then passed a law effectively overruling the people, and LePage has done all he can to thwart it. So the people have to vote to try to overrule the new law... Frankly the dishonest way the GOP with Democratic help has tried to overrule the people should make most voters eager to get RCV. When the powerful get threatened, and they are by RCV, is when you know it's likely good for the electorate, and it doesn't matter if you're right or left wing.

Story here
Click to expand...

Trump is no more a republican than a democrat. He should have run as an independent but he was smart enough to know he could never win as an independent. The republican party would have kicked Trump to the side the way the democratic party did Bernie except Trump destroyed a dozen of their top puppets.

This last election the majority of the country was not happy with their parties candidate by any means but voted party for fear of the other winning. I voted for Trump because of Hillary being the democratic candidate. I voted for Obama the first election. If Biden had run instead of Hillary I might have voted for him or an independent.

Your plan would put some stronger candidates running independent if there was a chance of winning. But as long as we have the 2 parties being funded and supported by the rich and powerful there is no hope of an independent winning. There is just too much corporate money plus the bogus media they own to overcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom