4 ms·

As I understand it, the Constitution was designed to provide several layers of indirection when selecting federal officials. In the original design before subse

As I understand it, the Constitution was designed to provide several layers of indirection when selecting federal officials. In the original design before subsequent amendment, voters only directly elected their congress person and their state legislatures. US Senators were behind one layer of indirection, being selected by state legislatures who were selected by popular vote. The Presidency was behind two layers of indirection: selected by vote of electors, who were selected by state legislatures, who were selected by popular vote. Finally, the Justices of the Supreme Court sit behind multiple layers of indirection: nominated by a President who is selected by electors, and confirmed by Senators, with both electors and Senators selected by state legislatures, who in turn were selected by popular vote. The idea was that the greater individual role an office had in preserving the constitutional system, the more insulated they were from the direct influence of unruly voters, and the more institutional support was necessary to assume office. I always thought this system was overly complex and did not adequately respect the views of the people, but now in the year of Trump, it increasingly seems like a wise idea lol.

chriskanan 10y ago
Here is an article discussing their motivations, with a bunch of quotes from the framers: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electora...
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Interesting that the article leaves out the counterarguments of the framers who were opposed to the system - the implied takeaway is that they were all on the same page, which is not the case.
emp_zealoth 10y ago
If Trump wins in the vote but the College gives it to Clinton you can kiss any semblance of the old order goodbye. While immediate aftermath would (IMO) not go beyond riots and endless turmoil in all kinds of media, next elections would probably become completely unhinged, with even more extreme radicalisation of voters Whether the electoral college could do that would be mostly irrelevant - they would be protecting exactly what Trump is saying he is out to destroy - the establishment I am not a US citizen so thinking about who I'd vote for just pure mental exercise. All I can say that to me the "false equivalency" is not false. They are both extremely bad candidates. I am convinced that if Clinton wins, she will be on par with Reagan or Thatcher - it will take years to even understand how badly they fucked the world up and even longer to unfuck if, if it is even possible Trump, on the other hand, he might be obnoxious but bearable, or he might cause a nuclear war. Nobody knows Fun times
- periphrasis 10y ago
  You misunderstand my final comment. Under the original system there was no popular vote for President. If we still adhered to the original system, the main candidates for President in 2016 would be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, and if the state legislatures maintained their current partisan split, then Jeb Bush would be the heavy favorite to win. Trump would be a non-factor since he wouldn't have had the institutional support of the GOP across enough of the state legislatures to really be in contention. As for your characterizations of Clinton and Trump, let me say I disagree. Someone who looked at Tiananmen Square and openly cheered the "strength" used in putting down pro-democracy protesters, and indeed continues to praise strongmen everywhere as models of leadership, is someone whose values are fundamentally incompatible with leading a democracy. Why that is less objectionable than a generic center-left candidate who is a bit too cozy with monied interests is beyond me.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    What happened to the pipeline protesters? Should they feel the current establishment is just "a bit too cozy with monies"? Just because no tanks were used doesn't mean there is less strongmaning to go around The problem is Clinton, kind of like Trup will say anything that is expected of her at that moment and it means pretty much nothing. She might hold the kids and listen and nod and then nothing will ever change. And let's not forget in just how many stinking shits she was mixed in (Sure, she was never nailed down, but how often does it happen anyway to the top ones?) And I am not even talking about the stupid fucking emails She's just a different kind of garbage, slightly more palatable to Trump
    - jlj 10y ago
      There are 5 other candidates on the ballot in WA. Dispite their flaws (they are human), Johnson and Stein are an order of magnitude more palatable to me.

chriskanan 10y ago

Here is an article discussing their motivations, with a bunch of quotes from the framers: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electora...

Amezarak 10y ago
Interesting that the article leaves out the counterarguments of the framers who were opposed to the system - the implied takeaway is that they were all on the same page, which is not the case.

emp_zealoth 10y ago

If Trump wins in the vote but the College gives it to Clinton you can kiss any semblance of the old order goodbye. While immediate aftermath would (IMO) not go beyond riots and endless turmoil in all kinds of media, next elections would probably become completely unhinged, with even more extreme radicalisation of voters Whether the electoral college could do that would be mostly irrelevant - they would be protecting exactly what Trump is saying he is out to destroy - the establishment I am not a US citizen so thinking about who I'd vote for just pure mental exercise. All I can say that to me the "false equivalency" is not false. They are both extremely bad candidates. I am convinced that if Clinton wins, she will be on par with Reagan or Thatcher - it will take years to even understand how badly they fucked the world up and even longer to unfuck if, if it is even possible Trump, on the other hand, he might be obnoxious but bearable, or he might cause a nuclear war. Nobody knows Fun times

periphrasis 10y ago
You misunderstand my final comment. Under the original system there was no popular vote for President. If we still adhered to the original system, the main candidates for President in 2016 would be Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, and if the state legislatures maintained their current partisan split, then Jeb Bush would be the heavy favorite to win. Trump would be a non-factor since he wouldn't have had the institutional support of the GOP across enough of the state legislatures to really be in contention. As for your characterizations of Clinton and Trump, let me say I disagree. Someone who looked at Tiananmen Square and openly cheered the "strength" used in putting down pro-democracy protesters, and indeed continues to praise strongmen everywhere as models of leadership, is someone whose values are fundamentally incompatible with leading a democracy. Why that is less objectionable than a generic center-left candidate who is a bit too cozy with monied interests is beyond me.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  What happened to the pipeline protesters? Should they feel the current establishment is just "a bit too cozy with monies"? Just because no tanks were used doesn't mean there is less strongmaning to go around The problem is Clinton, kind of like Trup will say anything that is expected of her at that moment and it means pretty much nothing. She might hold the kids and listen and nod and then nothing will ever change. And let's not forget in just how many stinking shits she was mixed in (Sure, she was never nailed down, but how often does it happen anyway to the top ones?) And I am not even talking about the stupid fucking emails She's just a different kind of garbage, slightly more palatable to Trump
  - jlj 10y ago
    There are 5 other candidates on the ballot in WA. Dispite their flaws (they are human), Johnson and Stein are an order of magnitude more palatable to me.