3 ms·
I have often thought that part of the rationale for the electoral college was that in the 18th century they did not have the internet, TV, Radio, even newspaper
by zw123456 7y ago
I have often thought that part of the rationale for the electoral college was that in the 18th century they did not have the internet, TV, Radio, even newspapers were pretty scarce. So it just wasn't all that practical for a candidate to ride a horse around all 13 colonies to meet each voter. The logical solution would have been to have a parliamentary system whereby the congress would select the president for you. The problem there was that the president would be beholden to the congress and you would lose some of the checks and balance features because he would be less likely to veto something. So they developed a "shadow congress" that did not have law making responsibilities but sole purpose was to travel to Philadelphia or DC and hear the speeches and so forth and select the president for you as your representative.
Looking at it from this 18th century perspective highlights why it is completely unnecessary today. Obviously the voter has many ways of getting to know the positions of the candidates themselves and hence able to elect the president directly. There is no need for it today.
- fastball 7y agoOn the other hand, the electoral college, like congress, gives actual weight to the idea that a state is more than just the sum of its population, by automatically getting two votes for being a state. Whether or not that is necessary is a different conversation from the information dissemination purpose of the EC.
- ianai 7y agoThat isn’t a reason for a single state to be able to hold the entire progress of the majority back.
- fastball 7y agoHow can a single state hold back progress in this case? Individual states can apportion their EC votes however they want. 48/50 states are all-or-nothing states (arguably the actual problem), which is decided at the state level.
- zw123456 7y agoI agree, the idea that you get equal "credit" for just being a state is also something that is no longer relevant. In the 18th and even 19th century the ratio of highly populated to low populated states was not significant. Today we have huge disparities that deteriorates our democracy.