3 ms·

That was the precise idea - and in an age when riding from the states to DC could take a month or more, the mechanism for that tally was electors who physically

by ColanR 7y ago

That was the precise idea - and in an age when riding from the states to DC could take a month or more, the mechanism for that tally was electors who physically travelled to DC, and were sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace.

microcolonel 7y ago
> ...sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace. And probably would've been beaten to death or hanged in public for the wrong form of dereliction of that duty. ;- )
- imustbeevil 7y ago
  Which could also be said for electors voting against their local interests in favor of their state's interests. Who's the derelict if everyone who lives within a 50 mile radius votes one way but the state goes another? That's the point of electors; states getting all of them for free should be the outlier.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    Hence the careful wording “the wrong form”. Just like other middleman, the elector is in a tough spot.
cybersnowflake 7y ago
Thats pretty odd to specify Electors who would vote then. Could have just said tally up the votes into EC votes and then the same man in a funny wig would still be dispatched to report in. Seems a pretty stupid convoluted way to go about it if what you're saying is correct
teilo 7y ago
Proof? We do have records of the arguments that were made for the elector system mandated by the Constitution, and they demonstrate that your "precise idea" is a fabrication. Here is some reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 It had almost nothing to do with the practicality (or lack thereof) of the popular vote. The debates focused upon balancing the right of the people with the right of the states, i.e., the ability of states with large populations to make the votes of smaller states irrelevant. Hamilton also focused on the need for trusted electors so that the people both had a say, and trusted individuals could avoid rash populism. I.e., the value of a representative form of election. The transient nature of the college was also important. The electors would have one task, and then be dismissed. They could not be people with a vested interest, such as members of congress, governors, etc. This also made them less likely to be influenced by foreign powers, as they would not be electors long enough to be so influenced.
- cmurf 7y ago
  There is nothing in 68 about states rights or relative populations. Central to 68 is the connection between regular citizen voters choosing Electors, directly, amongst themselves. They were to be deliberative, self-evidently independent from partisan party politics, chosen from the general population Federalist 68 proposes a mechanism we have not used since before the Civil War. The ballot would have been write-in only, and the name you were writing in was a person who lived in your own state, not a presidential candidate. but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE Unfortunately, the Founders appear to not have anticipated the wholesale corruption the party system would employ to sabotage both common sense and deliberate design, by making laws at state level to explicitly make Electors not from the general population but exclusively party loyalists: people who have sworn money and allegiance to their respective party. Who and what you are really voting for when you tick a box for a candidate, is not the candidate, but the candidate's party and that party system, and the state laws say the popular vote result is to cause that party's pre-selected loyalists to become Electors. What we have isn't anything like Federalist 68.
  - teilo 7y ago
    I didn't say that every argument at the time was embodied in Federalist 68. Madison, among others, was the most prominent one making the state's rights argument. But you are not wrong in your basic argument. The corruption of the college by the party system is a travesty. We may as well have a parliament / prime minister at this point. It would be preferable to the current system, IMO, at least in being more honest.
  - salawat 7y ago
    That is what bugs me. There is no realistic information shared about electors. It seems to me these people's character should be of the utmost importance from what I've read on the subject. Their neutrality from partisan politik was supposed to be a feature to guard against dropping chief executive authority on a candidate of ill nature. It's a pattern that happens all over the government. The masses are the first filter, a second pass is done by a smaller (generally more recognized) few, and then reconcile until everyone is satisfied.
cmurf 7y ago
The Electors never traveled. The state Electors deliberated amongst themselves in their own state, and submitted the result of their deliberation to the Congress.

by ColanR 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

> ...sworn to vote as they were directed by the populace. And probably would've been beaten to death or hanged in public for the wrong form of dereliction of that duty. ;- )

imustbeevil 7y ago
Which could also be said for electors voting against their local interests in favor of their state's interests. Who's the derelict if everyone who lives within a 50 mile radius votes one way but the state goes another? That's the point of electors; states getting all of them for free should be the outlier.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Hence the careful wording “the wrong form”. Just like other middleman, the elector is in a tough spot.

cybersnowflake 7y ago

Thats pretty odd to specify Electors who would vote then. Could have just said tally up the votes into EC votes and then the same man in a funny wig would still be dispatched to report in. Seems a pretty stupid convoluted way to go about it if what you're saying is correct

teilo 7y ago

Proof? We do have records of the arguments that were made for the elector system mandated by the Constitution, and they demonstrate that your "precise idea" is a fabrication. Here is some reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 It had almost nothing to do with the practicality (or lack thereof) of the popular vote. The debates focused upon balancing the right of the people with the right of the states, i.e., the ability of states with large populations to make the votes of smaller states irrelevant. Hamilton also focused on the need for trusted electors so that the people both had a say, and trusted individuals could avoid rash populism. I.e., the value of a representative form of election. The transient nature of the college was also important. The electors would have one task, and then be dismissed. They could not be people with a vested interest, such as members of congress, governors, etc. This also made them less likely to be influenced by foreign powers, as they would not be electors long enough to be so influenced.

cmurf 7y ago
There is nothing in 68 about states rights or relative populations. Central to 68 is the connection between regular citizen voters choosing Electors, directly, amongst themselves. They were to be deliberative, self-evidently independent from partisan party politics, chosen from the general population Federalist 68 proposes a mechanism we have not used since before the Civil War. The ballot would have been write-in only, and the name you were writing in was a person who lived in your own state, not a presidential candidate. but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE Unfortunately, the Founders appear to not have anticipated the wholesale corruption the party system would employ to sabotage both common sense and deliberate design, by making laws at state level to explicitly make Electors not from the general population but exclusively party loyalists: people who have sworn money and allegiance to their respective party. Who and what you are really voting for when you tick a box for a candidate, is not the candidate, but the candidate's party and that party system, and the state laws say the popular vote result is to cause that party's pre-selected loyalists to become Electors. What we have isn't anything like Federalist 68.
- teilo 7y ago
  I didn't say that every argument at the time was embodied in Federalist 68. Madison, among others, was the most prominent one making the state's rights argument. But you are not wrong in your basic argument. The corruption of the college by the party system is a travesty. We may as well have a parliament / prime minister at this point. It would be preferable to the current system, IMO, at least in being more honest.
- salawat 7y ago
  That is what bugs me. There is no realistic information shared about electors. It seems to me these people's character should be of the utmost importance from what I've read on the subject. Their neutrality from partisan politik was supposed to be a feature to guard against dropping chief executive authority on a candidate of ill nature. It's a pattern that happens all over the government. The masses are the first filter, a second pass is done by a smaller (generally more recognized) few, and then reconcile until everyone is satisfied.

cmurf 7y ago

The Electors never traveled. The state Electors deliberated amongst themselves in their own state, and submitted the result of their deliberation to the Congress.