2 ms·

It would be worthwhile to look at the history of the electoral college [1]. It was not there to balance state powers (that's what the senate is for). It was a

It would be worthwhile to look at the history of the electoral college [1]. It was not there to balance state powers (that's what the senate is for). It was a compromise between the people who did not want congress to be part of the voting (due to opportunity for corruption) and the ones that did not want a popular vote, because they did not trust the uneducated masses and feared mob rule. So the electoral college was born as compromise. The distribution of votes was actually performed based on population which even included slaves (as 3/5 people as another compromise, because the southern states wanted slaves to count for their votes, but not have them vote). It's just state populations have changed dramatically since then and the electoral college has not. [1] https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fath...

camhart 6y ago
The article and your comment summarizes factions into simply "mob rule", and seem to lead the reader to believe the electoral college wasn't well thought out--just a compromise. While the 3/5ths idea is apalling, using it the way you've done is, in my opinion, done to try and enforce the idea that its fundamentally flawed. The electoral college is designed to balance power. " In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[35] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Coll... "Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism." "Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. Madison defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".[14] He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues..." See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  I want to point out that diversity of opinion was celebrated in Federalist 10. The govenment was meant to constrain the power of factions and allow the diversity of people to flourish.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  You quote quite selectively. For example your first link also says: "Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South: There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[31]" So pretty much what I said, the direct popular vote would have been ideal in Madison's view and the electoral college was a compromise. In fact the compromise was because the southern states wanted voting power according to the slaves they owned without letting them vote.

camhart 6y ago

The article and your comment summarizes factions into simply "mob rule", and seem to lead the reader to believe the electoral college wasn't well thought out--just a compromise. While the 3/5ths idea is apalling, using it the way you've done is, in my opinion, done to try and enforce the idea that its fundamentally flawed. The electoral college is designed to balance power. " In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[35] " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Coll... "Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism." "Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of faction. Madison defines a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community".[14] He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues..." See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

tastyfreeze 6y ago
I want to point out that diversity of opinion was celebrated in Federalist 10. The govenment was meant to constrain the power of factions and allow the diversity of people to flourish.
cycomanic 6y ago
You quote quite selectively. For example your first link also says: "Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South: There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[31]" So pretty much what I said, the direct popular vote would have been ideal in Madison's view and the electoral college was a compromise. In fact the compromise was because the southern states wanted voting power according to the slaves they owned without letting them vote.