The Electoral College: Purpose, Problems, Alternatives

There is a poll thread that just started similar to this issue, but 1) I promised to start one, and 2) I think a more in-depth discussion is warranted. This is going to be a link-heavy opener.

First: The Electoral College was an invention of the new government in 1793. The population of the "new" United States was 3,929,214 divided into 13 States, and 65 Congressional Districts. The most populous State was Virginia, with 747,610 (but only 110,936 "Free white males", and 292,627 "slaves"). At 17.8 percent, the 1790 Census's proportion of slaves to the free population was the highest ever recorded by any census.1790 Census, Wikipedia. In short, the country that created the Electoral College was very different than the one we currently occupy.

Second: At the time of its creation, the President was elected by each State's legislature, not by popular vote. "The Constitution allowed each state to decide how to choose its presidential electors. In 1789, only Pennsylvania and Maryland held elections for this purpose; elsewhere, the state legislatures chose the electors." Presidential Elections - HISTORY "The 1824 presidential election was the first election in American history in which the popular vote mattered, as 18 [of 25] states chose presidential electors by popular vote in 1824 (six states still left the choice up to their state legislatures)." United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote - Wikipedia, and sure enough, the eventual winner, John Quincy Adams, did not win the popular vote (Andrew Jackson got the most votes). Instead, Adams was elected by the House of Representatives with "Representatives from 13 out of 25 states voting in his favor."

Third: "The Electoral College and its procedure are established in the U.S. Constitution by Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4; and the Twelfth Amendment (which replaced Clause 3 after its ratification in 1804). Under Clause 2, each of the states casts as many electoral votes as the total number of its Senators and Representatives in Congress, while, per the Twenty-third Amendment ratified in 1961, Washington, D.C. casts the same number of electoral votes as the least-represented state, which is three. Also under Clause 2, the manner for choosing electors is determined by each state legislature, not directly by the federal government. Many state legislatures previously selected their electors directly, but over time all of them switched to using the popular vote to help determine electors, which persists today. " Wikipedia

Fourth: "Presidential elections occur quadrennially with registered voters casting their ballots on Election Day, which since 1845 has been the first Tuesday after November 1. This date coincides with the general elections of various other federal, state, and local races; since local governments are responsible for managing elections, these races typically all appear on one ballot. The Electoral College electors then formally cast their electoral votes on the first Monday after December 12 at their respective state capitals."

The EC is a vestige of slavery and needs to go.

Rogue Valley said:

The EC is a vestige of slavery and needs to go.

Click to expand...

:roll:

False.

The idea for the Electoral College was begun by William Paterson, who was anti-Slavery. The two primary competing ideas at the convention were the Electoral college, or allowing Congress to pick the president. In either case there was no direct vote, and in both cases every state would have at least 3 votes.

The balance of individual needs versus states needs began when Congress was divided into the House and the Senate... if you want to change the EC for being outdated, then would you dispose of the senate as well? All the Electoral College is is a direct representation of a state's House and Senate Congressional seats. The Senate was not created "because slavery" either. It was created because the Federal Government was formed on the idea of strong state governments, each with a hand in the federal government. This is why, as designed, the Senate used to be appointed by state governments, not directly elected.

I think I may be willing to entertain a compromise, though... I'd entertain eliminating the Electoral College if you'd agree to eliminating illegal aliens from the apportionment calculation. Deal?

jmotivator said:

:roll:

False.

The idea for the Electoral College was begun by William Paterson, who was anti-Slavery. The two primary competing ideas at the convention were the Electoral college, or allowing Congress to pick the president. In either case there was no direct vote, and in both cases every state would have at least 3 votes.

The balance of individual needs versus states needs began when Congress was divided into the House and the Senate... if you want to change the EC for being outdated, then would you dispose of the senate as well? All the Electoral College is is a direct representation of a state's House and Senate Congressional seats. The Senate was not created "because slavery" either. It was created because the Federal Government was formed on the idea of strong state governments, each with a hand in the federal government. This is why, as designed, the Senate used to be appointed by state governments, not directly elected.

I think I may be willing to entertain a compromise, though... I'd entertain eliminating the Electoral College if you'd agree to eliminating illegal aliens from the apportionment calculation. Deal?

Click to expand...

I am in the process of providing additional information to supplement what I started, but feel free to add whatever y'all'd like. I intend this to be as informative and detailed as possible.

jmotivator said:

:roll:

False.

The idea for the Electoral College was begun by William Paterson, who was anti-Slavery. The two primary competing ideas at the convention were the Electoral college, or allowing Congress to pick the president. In either case there was no direct vote, and in both cases every state would have at least 3 votes.

The balance of individual needs versus states needs began when Congress was divided into the House and the Senate... if you want to change the EC for being outdated, then would you dispose of the senate as well? All the Electoral College is is a direct representation of a state's House and Senate Congressional seats. The Senate was not created "because slavery" either. It was created because the Federal Government was formed on the idea of strong state governments, each with a hand in the federal government. This is why, as designed, the Senate used to be appointed by state governments, not directly elected.

I think I may be willing to entertain a compromise, though... I'd entertain eliminating the Electoral College if you'd agree to eliminating illegal aliens from the apportionment calculation. Deal?

Click to expand...

I think I would rather be in favor of retaining the EC and getting rid of weaponized gerrymandering, but then I repeat myself, as all gerrymandering is weaponized, isn't it?

That said, if the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact earns 89 more votes, the EC will be rendered virtually non-functional.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I think I would rather be in favor of retaining the EC and getting rid of weaponized gerrymandering, but then I repeat myself, as all gerrymandering is weaponized, isn't it?

That said, if the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact earns 89 more votes, the EC will be rendered virtually non-functional.

Click to expand...

That movement only lasts as long as the blue states that join it see a benefit. It would never last if the results didn't favor the blue states. Do you think for a minute that California would pledge all of its EC votes to a Republican if the Democrats won California and the Republicans won the popular vote? No chance.

The same goes for every one of those signatory states. No state wants to be the one to have to tell their constituency that the majority of the voters in their state didn't count because the other party won the popular vote.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I think I would rather be in favor of retaining the EC and getting rid of weaponized gerrymandering, but then I repeat myself, as all gerrymandering is weaponized, isn't it?

That said, if the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact earns 89 more votes, the EC will be rendered virtually non-functional.

Click to expand...

My next installment is intended to be about the deleterious effects of the EC on voting/representational accuracy. The NIPVC would make up for some, but not all, of that skew, for reasons that I'll point out later in detail. In short, though, the fact that States have the same number of Senators, and Representatives that represent far different sizes of electorates, favors small, rural States. That skew is carried over to the EC, and would still be so even after the NIPVC took effect. Details to follow, but I have domestic responsibilities to attend to.

The founders rejected the tyranny of the majority.

Progressive democrats wish of course to establish a tyranny of the majority.

Getting what you want is often a curse when it all plays out at the end.

I wonder if they are even aware of what they are trying to destroy.

akyron said:

The founders rejected the tyranny of the majority.

Progressive democrats wish of course to establish a tyranny of the majority.

Getting what you want is often a curse when it all plays out at the end.

I wonder if they are even aware of what they are trying to destroy.

Click to expand...

The founders are dead. I have yet to see a good reason why a people should be saddled with a leader who doesn’t represent the will of the majority.

akyron said:

The founders rejected the tyranny of the majority.

Progressive democrats wish of course to establish a tyranny of the majority.

Getting what you want is often a curse when it all plays out at the end.

I wonder if they are even aware of what they are trying to destroy.

Click to expand...

Get that fake history PragerU bullcrap off this board.

akyron said:

The founders rejected the tyranny of the majority.

Progressive democrats wish of course to establish a tyranny of the majority.

Getting what you want is often a curse when it all plays out at the end.

I wonder if they are even aware of what they are trying to destroy.

Click to expand...

But we already have a tyranny... that is exactly what the EC is.

Bodhisattva said:

But we already have a tyranny... that is exactly what the EC is.

Click to expand...

Being stopped from controlling the rest of the country from a few select places is the opposite of tyranny.

akyron said:

Being stopped from controlling the rest of the country from a few select places is the opposite of tyranny.

Click to expand...

So when a Republican votes in CA and all 54 votes go Democrat... that is not an example of majority rule? i.e. Tyranny? It is just a different type of tyranny based off of districts which subvert States.

Bodhisattva said:

So when a Republican votes in CA and all 54 votes go Democrat... that is not an example of majority rule? i.e. Tyranny? It is just a different type of tyranny based off of districts which subvert States.

Click to expand...

In a sense yes. Nothing is perfect.

akyron said:

In a sense yes. Nothing is perfect.

Click to expand...

It would be closer to perfect if those 54 district votes were distributed out to the political party. Example 34 Dem 20 Rep.

Rogue Valley said:

The EC is a vestige of slavery and needs to go.

Click to expand...

And it runs contrary to our basic principle of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Five times the EC selected a President who lost the popular vote. And given times it was a Democrat who lost the presidency.

Get rid of it and elect the President the same way you elect every other office in America.

Bodhisattva said:

It would be closer to perfect if those 54 district votes were distributed out to the political party. Example 34 Dem 20 Rep.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. That line could drill down much further as well in an effort to expand the administration necessary to keep track of such things.

haymarket said:

And it runs contrary to our basic principle of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Five times the EC selected a President who lost the popular vote. And given times it was a Democrat who lost the presidency.

Get rid of it and elect the President the same way you elect every other office in America.

Click to expand...

A good road to corruption and mob rule.

akyron said:

A good road to corruption and mob rule.

Click to expand...

Could you explains how lawlessness and rioting in the street applies?

haymarket said:

Could you explains how lawlessness and rioting in the street applies?

Click to expand...

akyron said:

Click to expand...

what does this have to do with abolishing the Electoral College to elect a President of the USA?

Rogue Valley said:

The EC is a vestige of slavery and needs to go.

Click to expand...

~~~~~~
Bull Crap.... The Electoral College ensures that less populated states get a say in electing the president. Fly over states get a say in electing a president rather than the more populate states like California, New York and the more populated cities. We can thank the Progressive Democratic Party Slave States for insisting that slaves be assigned 3'5ths of a vote.

we now know that the EC will not prevent a completely unfit two bit huckster from duping the masses and assuming the presidency, as was one of the intended purposes. time for it to go in favor of the popular vote.

Doc91478 said:

~~~~~~
Bull Crap.... The Electoral College ensures that less populated states get a say in electing the president. Fly over states get a say in electing a president rather than the more populate states like California, New York and the more populated cities. We can thank the Progressive Democratic Party Slave States for insisting that slaves be assigned 3'5ths of a vote.

Click to expand...

Actually those smaller states you think are being protected are pretty much ignored by the candidates.

oh - by the way - slavery has been gone for a very long time now. It is the year 2019. Do keep up.

Helix said:

we now know that the EC will not prevent a completely unfit two bit huckster from duping the masses and assuming the presidency, as was one of the intended purposes. time for it to go in favor of the popular vote.

Click to expand...

You nailed it. We now know why you want the EC abolished. 1. Your all pissed you lost the election to Trump. 2. Your all pissed that Trump appointed two constitutionalist SC Judges rather than your activist judges that write law that you could not get passed in congress. 3. You all want to change the voting age to 16, more Dem votes. All three points of change is because you can't win so you have to change the law.

Your post is a perfect example of why you want the changes. SO YOU CAN WIN!!!!!