3 ms·
I don't think the electoral college was intended to work the way it does today. If I'm remembering correctly, it was originally a "Frank from town is really sma
by DuskStar 7y ago
I don't think the electoral college was intended to work the way it does today. If I'm remembering correctly, it was originally a "Frank from town is really smart and well-informed, so I'll send him to DC to choose the president" type of institution. (This is also part of why there was such a long gap between election day and inauguration - the electors still had to get together in DC)
So while the electoral college might have also functioned as a way to redistribute votes within a state... I don't think that was its main purpose.
- justin66 7y agoIf this were the case you'd expect to see a lot more faithless electors in our history than we have seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_fait... As with so much in American history the explanation involves slavery but judging from the downvotes here, that wounds everyone's pride a bit.
- DuskStar 7y ago> If this were the case you'd expect to see a lot more faithless electors in our history than we have seen. ...other than the large numbers in the late 1700s and early 1800s, you mean? And in any case, "intent" and "actual practice" were pretty different here. But that doesn't mean that the Connecticut Compromise [0] (which split the US legislative body into the House with representation apportioned by population and the Senate with set representation per state) was solely or even primarily due to slavery. And once you had that, using the total of Senators and Representatives for your number of electors makes a good amount of sense. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise