Is the purpose of the electoral college to thwart the will of the people? When the majority of voters select one person and the E.C. another...

[Jay59]

Being 40% of the population in the South their numbers were significant there. That’s why the South wanted them included in the equation.

Virginia was the state with the largest population without including slaves.

But here we are not talking about mob rule, we are talking about voting.

Tyranny of the Majority by Alexis de Tocqueville was still a generation away but the theme was already known

Except for the fact that the vast majority of the population feels rightly so that their vote for president is irrelevant. 7 states count. 43 don’t. This contributes to people feeling left out and helps to cause unrest.

There is a method for changing the Constitution. Get to work.

But it doesn’t really even work that way in reality. The 7 battleground states are not really the dispersed states.

That is a valid point, but the interests of both the dispersed states and the deep urban regions are well-represented.

Even if the dispersed states were the battleground states why should a dispersed population dominate a less dispersed one?

They don't. It only matters in unusually close elections.

UVa did an article on how close the last six elections were.

Defining ‘Close’ in the Context of the 2024 Election - Sabato's Crystal Ball

Most expect the presidential race to be “close,” but what does that actually mean? The 6 most recent presidential elections provide some parameters—and set a high bar.

centerforpolitics.org

Correct, it could be worse! But it could also be better.

It isn't broken so why tinker?

Good lord... That is some mighty fine white washing.

New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Georgia combined did not have the population of Pennsylvania, much less Virginia. In the Continental Congress, they each had a vote. In a per capita system they were worried about getting overwhelmed, ie that two or three big states could dictate policy to every other state. The big states were punching for expanded influence. Hence the Senate is based on the old vote-by-state model and the House is by population.

.. How exactly did it "protect" minorities?

The minorities are states, not individuals.

Did it protect all of them or just 3/5?

I guess you didn't get that memo.

 

[Fletch]

Request from a fan: Please give serious consideration to putting "Mwahahahahaaaa" as your signature, it would complete the whole cryptic villain shtick, and make your content even more entertaining.

A GIF of lightning flashing on a dark stormy night would be awesome too.

This must be that Canadian humor. But its gotta be hard to laugh when your balls are stuck to the floor of your igloo.

 

[BlueTex]

Not even an issue at the time the Constitution was being written. Nor were women. Check your history.

How did the 3/5 compromise come about

 

[Bullseye]

How did the 3/5 compromise come about

Negotiations. The South wouldn't accept the constitution if slaves were not counted as pert of House seating apportionment; the North didn't want hundreds of thousands counted to determine the South's seats in the house.

 

[OlNate]

This must be that Canadian humor. But its gotta be hard to laugh when your balls are stuck to the floor of your igloo.

Thank you for the acknowledgement, the oddly excessive Canadian male endowment comes with many challenges, it's nice to finally be able to talk about that with someone who cares.

However, I suppose it does have its upsides.

 

[BlueTex]

Negotiations. The South wouldn't accept the constitution if slaves were not counted as pert of House seating apportionment; the North didn't want hundreds of thousands counted to determine the South's seats in the house.

Apportionment directly related to the electoral college, correct?

 

[Peter]

Nope. That's exactly how the Founders designed it - to prevent mob rule, aka tyranny of the majority.

How is a tyranny of the minority better?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The President is the only elected official, local, state, or federal, not directly chosen by the American people!

Incorrect. Not a single one of them is. The president (and vice president) are the only ones who are voted upon by all states, and the people within. All other officials are elected only by their constituents, not by the American people. I don't get to vote for your officials, and I am a part of the American people.

This is a foolish misinterpretation.

You are American people, right?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Trump won because we elect presidents not by a national election but by 50 state elections, and Dems tend to concentrate in a few intensely blue states.

The President is the only elected official, local, state, or federal, not directly chosen by the American people! Click on ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...UQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QgdtaHVHRGlLynLMj2xHJ

 

[eman623]

The President is the only elected official, local, state, or federal, not directly chosen by the American people! Click on ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...UQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QgdtaHVHRGlLynLMj2xHJ

Thank you for the link. Did you know that for most of our history senators were not directly chosen by the voter too?

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And did you also know the President is the only elected official that represents all the states and people? Thus the states and people in each state get a vote.

 

[George50]

Virginia was the state with the largest population without including slaves.


Tyranny of the Majority by Alexis de Tocqueville was still a generation away but the theme was already known


There is a method for changing the Constitution. Get to work.

The odds of that happening are very remote. The odds of making the Interstate Compact work are better.

That is a valid point, but the interests of both the dispersed states and the deep urban regions are well-represented.


They don't. It only matters in unusually close elections.

UVa did an article on how close the last six elections were.

Defining ‘Close’ in the Context of the 2024 Election - Sabato's Crystal Ball

Most expect the presidential race to be “close,” but what does that actually mean? The 6 most recent presidential elections provide some parameters—and set a high bar.

centerforpolitics.org

It isn't broken so why tinker?

So that all Americans feel their vote is meaningful in Presidential elections rather than just those in 7 states. Of course I feel the system is broken because that’s not the case now, but it could be.

New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Georgia combined did not have the population of Pennsylvania, much less Virginia. In the Continental Congress, they each had a vote. In a per capita system they were worried about getting overwhelmed, ie that two or three big states could dictate policy to every other state. The big states were punching for expanded influence. Hence the Senate is based on the old vote-by-state model and the House is by population.


The minorities are states, not individuals.


I guess you didn't get that memo.

 

[Jay59]

The odds of that happening are very remote.

That is your only realistic option.

The odds of making the Interstate Compact work are better.

If that does not underscore Amendment is the best option, nothing will

So that all Americans feel their vote is meaningful in Presidential elections rather than just those in 7 states. Of course I feel the system is broken because that’s not the case now, but it could be.

Have a few not-very-close elections, like 2008, and this will quietly settle.

 

[Teatime]

What failed form of government am I defending?

Democracy. The founding fathers thought we would replace the Constitution about every 20 years, it's time we do so.

 

[SoCal]

I guess we can have this conversation again, been a week or so since we've seen a EC vs. popular vote thread.

The answer is sort of.

The original intention was to deal with equal populations of the northern and southern states, but too many in the southern states included slave populations in those numbers. So, in order to "compromise" on this they agreed to an Electoral College system that made it where northern land owning white male voters did not outweigh southern land owning white male voters by "accounting" for the populations of these states. Equilibrium was established, in an odd sort of way.

The EC was born, and now we are stuck with it...

Exactly, created when the states were much more independent. The federal government has united us (so to speak) since then.

It's way past time, we join the rest of the modern world, let our citizens choose our leader and finally put an end to the tyranny of the minority ...

 

[maquiscat]

This is a foolish misinterpretation.

You are American people, right?

I said as much and you quoted it. Did you not bother to read the entire post? So instead of an inane comeback, prove me wrong. Show me any other federal government official, other than the president and vice president, that is directly elected by all the American people. Show me how the president and VP is not already an exception to the rule before we take into account the EC.

 

[maquiscat]

And did you also know the President is the only elected official that represents all the states and people? Thus the states and people in each state get a vote.

We do need to make the point that, unlike Senators now, the Constitution does not provide any requirement for the President and VP to be elected by the people through direct vote. States can use any method they wish to allocate their electors to the EC.

 

[PoS]

Are you seriously asking, or seriously hoping you're correct?
The founders got it right. They didn't trust a system of direct democracy.

Yup. All one has to do is look at the fascist lib responses in this thread as proof the FF were right.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yep, and the reason they did that was to prevent the more populous North from out muscling the agrarian South in presidential elections.

So, you are telling everyone that the Founding Fathers fully intended that the United States of America to be governed by a reactionary Southern plutocracy - are you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No it's not. How can the constitution be the will of the people when none of us were around when it was written?

Until "the people" decide to get off their butts and CHANGE the constitution of a country, then the existing constitution of that country REMAINS the "will of the people".

The constitution was the will of the founding fathers, the guys who thought only white male landowners should vote, while they created flowery documents saying all men are created equal when some of them owned slaves.

Now there's a blinding flash of the obvious.

Did women and black folks have no wills, no voices? No, they didn't.

Sure they had "wills" and "voices" - it's just that those didn't matter as far as "The Right People" who were governing the country were concerned.

 

[Gardener]

Schools must not teach civics anymore. Doing so would take away from all the social engineering, I suppose.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We do need to make the point that, unlike Senators now, the Constitution does not provide any requirement for the President and VP to be elected by the people through direct vote. States can use any method they wish to allocate their electors to the EC.

Indeed, there is no constitutional prohibition on a state auctioning off its Electoral College "seats" (either individually or en bloc).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Schools must not teach civics anymore. Doing so would take away from all the social engineering, I suppose.

I don't know why you are expecting the schools to teach "civics". After all, the schools don't teach English to the point of functional literacy and don't teach mathematics to the point of functional numeracy, so why would they teach "civics" to the point of functional "civilization"?

 

[Gardener]

I don't know why you are expecting the schools to teach "civics". After all, the schools don't teach English to the point of functional literacy and don't teach mathematics to the point of functional numeracy, so why would they teach "civics" to the point of functional "civilization"?

As Toynbee once said, "Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder."

 

[Bullseye]

So, you are telling everyone that the Founding Fathers fully intended that the United States of America to be governed by a reactionary Southern plutocracy - are you?

Nope, you got it exactly backwards. By counting all slaves to apportion House seats the South would have a large influence in the House.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nope, you got it exactly backwards. By counting all slaves to apportion House seats the South would have a large influence in the House.

The original position was that ONLY free whites would be counted - that would have applied to BOTH the Northern states and the Southern states.

The Southern states simply wouldn't have ratified the constitution if that had been the case (and, of course, there would never have been an American "civil war".