It feels like the only protections the EC provides is to the GOPs ability to win the presidency. I agree with Walz, the EC needs to go, it’s too easy to game by focusing on swing states.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. 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. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,‘’ yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
In other words, it’s supposed to stop someone like Trump from ever being President. Since that clearly failed, maybe we should junk the whole thing.
Even this is generous. The Federalist Papers, IMO, should be taken as a way to sell the new constitution to the populace. They make it sound like the whole thing was more well thought out than it really was. The constitution that came out is just the compromise everyone could live with after debating it for hours. Politicians back then aren’t that different from today; they have their own agendas, their own ambitions, and their own squabbles. They also get tired after long debates and will vote for anything as long as it gets them out of there.
On top of that, a good chunk of what they were thinking at the time–which you can see echos of in the quote above–was deflecting criticism that democracy couldn’t work. The US was the first modern democracy, and there were plenty of aristocrats in Europe (and even some useful idiots domestically) who laughed off the idea of a government run by peasants. The result is a system that doesn’t go all in on democracy, and has all these little exceptions. “No, no, see, the electoral college will stop a populist idiot from taking executive power”.
We’ve changed a lot of those over the years, such as electing senators rather than having them appointed by state governors. In hindsight, these were not necessary at all. It’s time for the electoral college to go.
While there’s plenty of criticism of the constitution along slavery lines, this isn’t one of them. Sorting the 1790 census by total population and then comparing the percentage of slave population, you’ll see that it’s very mixed. If the EC were to protect slavery, we would expect states with a high slave population to have a lower population overall, but that isn’t the case.
Also of note is that only two states (Maine and Massachusetts) had zero slaves. There were a handful of house slaves in almost every state at the time. Those states didn’t have a heavy economic dependence on slavery, though. It’s the southern states, with their whole economy built around plantation slavery, that are the real problem. But again, they don’t line up in ways that would give them an EC edge.
Except it doesn’t check out when you break down the numbers.
Right from the get-go, the Electoral College has produced no shortage of lessons about the impact of racial entitlement in selecting the president. History buffs and Hamilton fans are aware that in its first major failure, the Electoral College produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and his putative running mate, Aaron Burr.
The EC in the 1800 election was 73/65 in favor of Jefferson. The popular vote was 60% in Jefferson’s favor, but he got 53% of the EC. If anything, the EC put him at a disadvantage.
The tie spoken of above was a technical issue between Jefferson and his intended Vice President, Aaron Burr. It doesn’t have much to do with slavery at all. They were trying to hack around the system of setting the second place winner as Vice President, and it blew up in their face. Burr was always intended by the Democratic-Republicans to be Vice President.
The 12th amendment was passed before the next election to do away with that means of selecting the Vice President. It was ratified by both slave and free states. It was rejected by Delaware and Connecticut, both of which had <10% of their population as slaves in the 1800 Census (only three states had zero slaves by then).
Adams was by far more consistently against slavery compared to Jefferson. You can find writings where Jefferson was against it, but his actions plainly speak otherwise. Adams never owned a slave and even avoided employing them secondhand. Which is about as difficult as avoiding products from tobacco industry subsidiaries today.
Adams lost, but he would have lost with or without the EC.
Anything that happens later (which is where the article goes after the above) isn’t particularly relevant to how the EC was intended to work. The population dynamics and entry of new states couldn’t have been predicted at the time.
The three-fifths compromise, though? Absolute fucking evil. Adams maybe wins the EC in 1800 without that, and (more importantly) Congress would certainly look very different. The EC was, if anything, a counterbalance to the three-fifths compromise, though not a very strong one.
The EC should go away because it’s antidemocratic. The argument that it was for slavery, though, just doesn’t add up.
The electoral college is an institution where electors cast votes to elect the President. In theory, it allows electors to choose a different president if the population chooses someone terrible.
It’s not /supposed/ to favor red states. However the formula for counting number of electors relies on the number of representatives in the house. That is fixed at 435 by law. To fix the electoral college, we’d have to remove that cap and it would work the way the founders intended.
But then, you’d need a helluva lot of dissenters to change. Is it possible? Sure. Is this system built for current day population and densities? Arguably not
It’s not /supposed/ to favor red states. However the formula for counting number of electors relies on the number of representatives in the house. That is fixed at 435 by law. To fix the electoral college, we’d have to remove that cap and it would work the way the founders intended.
We’d also have to end the popular vote and have all the states go back to having Electors appointed by the state legislatures. That’s what the founders really intended: something more akin to how prime ministers are chosen within a parliamentary system, but with added Federalism by delegating it to the states rather than Congress.
That whole Federalism part of it, which comes from the initial concept of the US being a confederation of sovereign States (kinda like the EU is now) rather than the single sovereign entity it’s mostly become, really was designed to balance power between large-population states and small ones at least a little bit, though. As such, I can’t entirely agree with your first sentence.
Today each state decides how to assign their electors. In my uneducated opinion for the system to be fixed, rather than states being “winner take all”, it would make more sense for each state to allocate electors in proportion to the popular vote within their state.
Except the scotus recently ruled that electors have to abide by the laws of the state that require them to vote a certain way, so the idea that they are free to vote as they wish is gone.
And part of the reason why it was implemented is that the population in the north was way bigger than the south, and so they were trying to make it more even where southern States would have more representation, so in a way it was meant to “protect red states.”
It’s important to note that the human populations of northern and southern states were fairly close to even, but the south decided that anyone with a bit too much melanin was property, not a human with rights and a vote…and they were very reluctant to give up that system.
True. I should have been more clear and said voting population. I think the population in the south exceeded the north if you count slaves, which is why they only counted 3/5ths.
Everyone’s vote having the same weight, and our elections not being a competition to win a handful of battleground states while ignoring the rest of the country? Don’t threaten me with a good time.
2000 too. Not to mention that in 1980 the electoral college did not protect us from a populist fascist. So I’m not really sure what good Electoral College is. If it doesn’t do the thing the people say it’s supposed to do. Even though all it was ever supposed to do was to protect slave states and conservative power. Which is all it’s ever done.
A lot went on in 2000. One was the electoral vote didn’t match the popular. Another was that the automatic counting machines rejected good ballots due to error in Florida. The spread was close enough to trigger a recount. After the first machine recount gore requested a hand recount. The Republicans running Florida threw up every barrier they could. I belive gore was up in the hand recount and likely to win it, but they moved the date up and stated they would reject recounts not finished. The Supreme Court upheld the date, which had been chosen to be impossible to meet.
2000 was only close due to the electoral college. The supreme court fuck up didn’t help of course. Without the Electoral College Reagan or bush senior would have been the last Republican presidents we had. Because I think they were the last two to win the popular vote.
What kind of protections?
It feels like the only protections the EC provides is to the GOPs ability to win the presidency. I agree with Walz, the EC needs to go, it’s too easy to game by focusing on swing states.
The ec Is so anti democratic. It does need to go
Let’s see what the founders had in mind:
In other words, it’s supposed to stop someone like Trump from ever being President. Since that clearly failed, maybe we should junk the whole thing.
Even this is generous. The Federalist Papers, IMO, should be taken as a way to sell the new constitution to the populace. They make it sound like the whole thing was more well thought out than it really was. The constitution that came out is just the compromise everyone could live with after debating it for hours. Politicians back then aren’t that different from today; they have their own agendas, their own ambitions, and their own squabbles. They also get tired after long debates and will vote for anything as long as it gets them out of there.
On top of that, a good chunk of what they were thinking at the time–which you can see echos of in the quote above–was deflecting criticism that democracy couldn’t work. The US was the first modern democracy, and there were plenty of aristocrats in Europe (and even some useful idiots domestically) who laughed off the idea of a government run by peasants. The result is a system that doesn’t go all in on democracy, and has all these little exceptions. “No, no, see, the electoral college will stop a populist idiot from taking executive power”.
We’ve changed a lot of those over the years, such as electing senators rather than having them appointed by state governors. In hindsight, these were not necessary at all. It’s time for the electoral college to go.
What it was designed for, to protect the slave states and provide another barrier to populist movements.
Also the EC will never be abolished, despite whatever candidates promise every 4 years. It’s too useful.
While there’s plenty of criticism of the constitution along slavery lines, this isn’t one of them. Sorting the 1790 census by total population and then comparing the percentage of slave population, you’ll see that it’s very mixed. If the EC were to protect slavery, we would expect states with a high slave population to have a lower population overall, but that isn’t the case.
Also of note is that only two states (Maine and Massachusetts) had zero slaves. There were a handful of house slaves in almost every state at the time. Those states didn’t have a heavy economic dependence on slavery, though. It’s the southern states, with their whole economy built around plantation slavery, that are the real problem. But again, they don’t line up in ways that would give them an EC edge.
No, its a pretty well documented critique. The EC increased the South’s delegates by a huge margin.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins
Except it doesn’t check out when you break down the numbers.
The EC in the 1800 election was 73/65 in favor of Jefferson. The popular vote was 60% in Jefferson’s favor, but he got 53% of the EC. If anything, the EC put him at a disadvantage.
The tie spoken of above was a technical issue between Jefferson and his intended Vice President, Aaron Burr. It doesn’t have much to do with slavery at all. They were trying to hack around the system of setting the second place winner as Vice President, and it blew up in their face. Burr was always intended by the Democratic-Republicans to be Vice President.
The 12th amendment was passed before the next election to do away with that means of selecting the Vice President. It was ratified by both slave and free states. It was rejected by Delaware and Connecticut, both of which had <10% of their population as slaves in the 1800 Census (only three states had zero slaves by then).
Adams was by far more consistently against slavery compared to Jefferson. You can find writings where Jefferson was against it, but his actions plainly speak otherwise. Adams never owned a slave and even avoided employing them secondhand. Which is about as difficult as avoiding products from tobacco industry subsidiaries today.
Adams lost, but he would have lost with or without the EC.
Anything that happens later (which is where the article goes after the above) isn’t particularly relevant to how the EC was intended to work. The population dynamics and entry of new states couldn’t have been predicted at the time.
The three-fifths compromise, though? Absolute fucking evil. Adams maybe wins the EC in 1800 without that, and (more importantly) Congress would certainly look very different. The EC was, if anything, a counterbalance to the three-fifths compromise, though not a very strong one.
The EC should go away because it’s antidemocratic. The argument that it was for slavery, though, just doesn’t add up.
To be honest, I’m not sure it applies.
The electoral college is an institution where electors cast votes to elect the President. In theory, it allows electors to choose a different president if the population chooses someone terrible.
It’s not /supposed/ to favor red states. However the formula for counting number of electors relies on the number of representatives in the house. That is fixed at 435 by law. To fix the electoral college, we’d have to remove that cap and it would work the way the founders intended.
But then, you’d need a helluva lot of dissenters to change. Is it possible? Sure. Is this system built for current day population and densities? Arguably not
We’d also have to end the popular vote and have all the states go back to having Electors appointed by the state legislatures. That’s what the founders really intended: something more akin to how prime ministers are chosen within a parliamentary system, but with added Federalism by delegating it to the states rather than Congress.
That whole Federalism part of it, which comes from the initial concept of the US being a confederation of sovereign States (kinda like the EU is now) rather than the single sovereign entity it’s mostly become, really was designed to balance power between large-population states and small ones at least a little bit, though. As such, I can’t entirely agree with your first sentence.
I did some math assuming lowest population is 1 seat and rounding to the nearest whole number based on 2020 census using that factor.
We should have 574 seats with 676 electors. I didn’t include Puerto Rico or overseas who didn’t claim a state.
Today each state decides how to assign their electors. In my uneducated opinion for the system to be fixed, rather than states being “winner take all”, it would make more sense for each state to allocate electors in proportion to the popular vote within their state.
Would be easier to just get rid of the damn thing
Except the scotus recently ruled that electors have to abide by the laws of the state that require them to vote a certain way, so the idea that they are free to vote as they wish is gone.
And part of the reason why it was implemented is that the population in the north was way bigger than the south, and so they were trying to make it more even where southern States would have more representation, so in a way it was meant to “protect red states.”
It’s important to note that the human populations of northern and southern states were fairly close to even, but the south decided that anyone with a bit too much melanin was property, not a human with rights and a vote…and they were very reluctant to give up that system.
True. I should have been more clear and said voting population. I think the population in the south exceeded the north if you count slaves, which is why they only counted 3/5ths.
It makes sure white people never lose political control of the country.
It absolutely must go - fuck the EC with a rusty fucking spork.
Consider the possiblity that the president will be elected by the popular vote. That might be dangerous
The leader might be elected DEMOCRATICALLY? The horror
Everyone’s vote having the same weight, and our elections not being a competition to win a handful of battleground states while ignoring the rest of the country? Don’t threaten me with a good time.
And, when the president is elected against the popular vote? Like in 2016?
2000 too. Not to mention that in 1980 the electoral college did not protect us from a populist fascist. So I’m not really sure what good Electoral College is. If it doesn’t do the thing the people say it’s supposed to do. Even though all it was ever supposed to do was to protect slave states and conservative power. Which is all it’s ever done.
I thought the issue with the 2000 election was because of SCOTUS. Not a yank, and wasn’t amping for the 1980s, but I appreciate your insights!
A lot went on in 2000. One was the electoral vote didn’t match the popular. Another was that the automatic counting machines rejected good ballots due to error in Florida. The spread was close enough to trigger a recount. After the first machine recount gore requested a hand recount. The Republicans running Florida threw up every barrier they could. I belive gore was up in the hand recount and likely to win it, but they moved the date up and stated they would reject recounts not finished. The Supreme Court upheld the date, which had been chosen to be impossible to meet.
2000 was only close due to the electoral college. The supreme court fuck up didn’t help of course. Without the Electoral College Reagan or bush senior would have been the last Republican presidents we had. Because I think they were the last two to win the popular vote.
It protected a business-friendly candidate from one that was supported by women and minorities. The system worked perfectly.
If the majority of Americans vote for Trump then America is a failed state.
Is that you, Alito?