4 ms·

It's not the same argument that's being made today. They arguing against delegation of your vote to another person. Quoting: > Is it then become necessary, tha

It's not the same argument that's being made today. They arguing against delegation of your vote to another person. Quoting: > Is it then become necessary, that a free people should first resign their right of suffrage into other hands besides their own, and then, secondly, that they to whom they resign it should be compelled to choose men, whose persons, characters, manners, or principles they know nothing of? We no longer have a system where you vote for an elector who decides which presidential candidate to vote for. The electors in the electoral college execute a formality, they don't make decisions. The issues around electoral college vs. popular vote are not addressed in this paper.

ericbarrett 6y ago
The system has been patched since, yes. I was stunned reading this criticism of the powers given to the office of President: > By the same means, he may render his suspensive power over the laws as operative and permanent as that of G. the 3d [George III] over the acts of the British parliament; and under the modest title of president, may exercise the combined authority of legislation and execution, in a latitude yet unthought of. Upon his being invested with those powers a second or third time, he may acquire such enormous influence -- as, added to his uncontrollable power over the army, navy, and militia; together with his private interest in the officers of all these different departments, who are all to be appointed by himself, and so his creatures, in the true political sense of the word; and more especially when added to all this, he has the power of forming treaties and alliances, and calling them to his assistance -- that he may, I say, under all these advantages and almost irresistible temptations, on some pretended pique, haughtily and contemptuously, turn our poor lower house (the only shadow of liberty we shall have left) out of doors, and give us law at the bayonet's point. Or, may not the senate, who are nearly in the same situation, with respect to the people, from similar motives and by similar means, erect themselves easily into an oligarchy, towards which they have already attempted so large a stride? To one of which channels, or rather to a confluence of both, we seem to be fast gliding away; and the moment we arrive at it -- farewell liberty. . . .
- SllX 6y ago
  The Senate confirmation process has worked both for and against Presidents. This was a powerful argument during the ratification debates and the Anti-Federalists were an important faction (if you could call them a faction anyway, it’s more than just the people that wrote these papers), but history has proven the President isn’t a King. Even the public discourse criticizing the excesses of Bush II, Obama and Trump have been important to curtailing those abuses, and unlike Kings, Presidents have term limits: 4 years, and then America decides if it still wants your leadership, like clockwork. Thanks to people like the Anti-Federalists, both the writers behind the papers and the larger segment of society that was against the Constitution, a Bill of Rights was promised during the ratification debates, and then drafted and passed by the Congress and then ratified by sufficient States. The system works, better than we sometimes like to give it credit for. EDIT: fixed wording
  - ericbarrett 6y ago
    Great insight, thank you.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > a Bill of Rights was promised during the ratification debates, and then drafted and ratified by the Congress Well, Articles 2-12 of the proposed Bill of Rights were ratified by the States (Congress proposes amendments but does not ratify them), though Article 2 only after quite an extended period had elapsed from it's proposal.
    - SllX 6y ago
      > Congress proposes amendments but does not ratify them Right you are. I took a poor shortcut in my writing, but I’ve gone back and fixed the wording.
krapp 6y ago
>We no longer have a system where you vote for an elector who decides which presidential candidate to vote for. The electors in the electoral college execute a formality, they don't make decisions. Thankfully so, given recent events.
- SllX 6y ago
  Not necessarily so. The States can punish or replace faithless Electors, but a punishment doesn’t necessarily replace a faithless vote with a faithful one. In theory, Trump received 306 EC votes in 2016 to Clinton’s 232[1]. In reality it was 304 for Trump, 227 for Clinton, 3 for Colin Powell, 1 for Bernie Sanders, 1 for John Kasich, 1 for Ron Paul, 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle[2]. There were 3 others that voted faithlessly but those votes were invalidated by their State’s, one of them changed his vote back to who he pledged for, and the others were replaced with alternates. Some faithless votes on the Vice Presidential vote as well, but refer back to [2] for those. [1] https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Validated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
step4bcdeffd355 6y ago
>> Is it then become necessary, that a free people should first resign their right of suffrage into other hands besides their own, and then, secondly, that they to whom they resign it should be compelled to choose men, whose persons, characters, manners, or principles they know nothing of? What I find lacking about that argument is the principle also applies to Congress, just change "choose men" to "pass laws". The apportioning of Electoral Votes is identical to that of Congressional seats. The method of filling Electoral seats (decided by state legislature) is identical to how Senatorial seats were filled prior to passage of the 17th Amendment. With all that, I think it's fair to think of the electoral College as a single-use, single-purpose Congress. I wonder if starting with that as a prior would improve discussions about changing the EC.

ericbarrett 6y ago

The system has been patched since, yes. I was stunned reading this criticism of the powers given to the office of President: > By the same means, he may render his suspensive power over the laws as operative and permanent as that of G. the 3d [George III] over the acts of the British parliament; and under the modest title of president, may exercise the combined authority of legislation and execution, in a latitude yet unthought of. Upon his being invested with those powers a second or third time, he may acquire such enormous influence -- as, added to his uncontrollable power over the army, navy, and militia; together with his private interest in the officers of all these different departments, who are all to be appointed by himself, and so his creatures, in the true political sense of the word; and more especially when added to all this, he has the power of forming treaties and alliances, and calling them to his assistance -- that he may, I say, under all these advantages and almost irresistible temptations, on some pretended pique, haughtily and contemptuously, turn our poor lower house (the only shadow of liberty we shall have left) out of doors, and give us law at the bayonet's point. Or, may not the senate, who are nearly in the same situation, with respect to the people, from similar motives and by similar means, erect themselves easily into an oligarchy, towards which they have already attempted so large a stride? To one of which channels, or rather to a confluence of both, we seem to be fast gliding away; and the moment we arrive at it -- farewell liberty. . . .

SllX 6y ago
The Senate confirmation process has worked both for and against Presidents. This was a powerful argument during the ratification debates and the Anti-Federalists were an important faction (if you could call them a faction anyway, it’s more than just the people that wrote these papers), but history has proven the President isn’t a King. Even the public discourse criticizing the excesses of Bush II, Obama and Trump have been important to curtailing those abuses, and unlike Kings, Presidents have term limits: 4 years, and then America decides if it still wants your leadership, like clockwork. Thanks to people like the Anti-Federalists, both the writers behind the papers and the larger segment of society that was against the Constitution, a Bill of Rights was promised during the ratification debates, and then drafted and passed by the Congress and then ratified by sufficient States. The system works, better than we sometimes like to give it credit for. EDIT: fixed wording
- ericbarrett 6y ago
  Great insight, thank you.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > a Bill of Rights was promised during the ratification debates, and then drafted and ratified by the Congress Well, Articles 2-12 of the proposed Bill of Rights were ratified by the States (Congress proposes amendments but does not ratify them), though Article 2 only after quite an extended period had elapsed from it's proposal.
  - SllX 6y ago
    > Congress proposes amendments but does not ratify them Right you are. I took a poor shortcut in my writing, but I’ve gone back and fixed the wording.

krapp 6y ago

>We no longer have a system where you vote for an elector who decides which presidential candidate to vote for. The electors in the electoral college execute a formality, they don't make decisions. Thankfully so, given recent events.

SllX 6y ago
Not necessarily so. The States can punish or replace faithless Electors, but a punishment doesn’t necessarily replace a faithless vote with a faithful one. In theory, Trump received 306 EC votes in 2016 to Clinton’s 232[1]. In reality it was 304 for Trump, 227 for Clinton, 3 for Colin Powell, 1 for Bernie Sanders, 1 for John Kasich, 1 for Ron Paul, 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle[2]. There were 3 others that voted faithlessly but those votes were invalidated by their State’s, one of them changed his vote back to who he pledged for, and the others were replaced with alternates. Some faithless votes on the Vice Presidential vote as well, but refer back to [2] for those. [1] https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Validated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...

step4bcdeffd355 6y ago

>> Is it then become necessary, that a free people should first resign their right of suffrage into other hands besides their own, and then, secondly, that they to whom they resign it should be compelled to choose men, whose persons, characters, manners, or principles they know nothing of? What I find lacking about that argument is the principle also applies to Congress, just change "choose men" to "pass laws". The apportioning of Electoral Votes is identical to that of Congressional seats. The method of filling Electoral seats (decided by state legislature) is identical to how Senatorial seats were filled prior to passage of the 17th Amendment. With all that, I think it's fair to think of the electoral College as a single-use, single-purpose Congress. I wonder if starting with that as a prior would improve discussions about changing the EC.