4 ms·

> That's why the system was designed with an electoral college. So that rural farmers could be represented as equally and strongly as city business people. Thi

> That's why the system was designed with an electoral college. So that rural farmers could be represented as equally and strongly as city business people. This isn't all that accurate. One of the main reasons why the framers came up with the electoral college was due to the fact that, 200+ years ago, information exchange was extremely low. The US was already fairly large at that point, and the concern was that 18th-century voters in rural areas would lack the resources to have an informed vote about national candidates. There was concern about equal representation, but reducing that down to just "farmers" is a little disingenuous. The reason why Southern states agreed to a voting system that granted electors based off of population was because they were able to work in the Three-Fifths compromise. States like Virginia, where enslaved people counted 60% of the population, greatly benefited from this, and at one point enabled Virginia to count for 25% of the national electorate. These decisions might have been reasonable 200+ years ago, but neither of these are the case anymore, and are not good reasons to cling on to a system that was largely born out of necessity. Also, one point that's usually glossed over is that when people gripe about the electoral college, it's usually referring to the fact that the candidate with the majority of votes in a state takes all of their electors (e.g. winner takes all). However, the framers never defined how states should conduct their own elections. This system of allocating votes only began catching on around 40 years after they ratified the Constitution, where individual states gradually decided to implement this system. There's nothing in the Constitution about it, and even James Madison famously wrote a letter in 1827 complaining about how adopting this system could undermine our entire Democratic process.

finder83 6y ago
Though I think that the history is also likely more complex than that, regardless of the history, that still doesn't change my point. The electoral college process still serves us better than a simple majority would. I agree there are possibly better ways, possibly force choice ranking, etc. But all a simple majority vote would do would be to ensure we would become a one-party system, the opposite direction we should be headed (a multiple-party system). Having it be controlled by the states is a great testing bed for that, for example, in Maine. There's no reason to take that power away from states and make it federal. IANAL, but my interpretation is that the part that is in the constitution is that it is up to the individual states to decide how to run their elections and assign electoral votes.

finder83 6y ago

Though I think that the history is also likely more complex than that, regardless of the history, that still doesn't change my point. The electoral college process still serves us better than a simple majority would. I agree there are possibly better ways, possibly force choice ranking, etc. But all a simple majority vote would do would be to ensure we would become a one-party system, the opposite direction we should be headed (a multiple-party system). Having it be controlled by the states is a great testing bed for that, for example, in Maine. There's no reason to take that power away from states and make it federal. IANAL, but my interpretation is that the part that is in the constitution is that it is up to the individual states to decide how to run their elections and assign electoral votes.