3 ms·

Your statements regarding the Electoral College here are horribly simplistic and ill-informed about the separation of powers and system of checks and balances.

Your statements regarding the Electoral College here are horribly simplistic and ill-informed about the separation of powers and system of checks and balances. There were no functioning constitutional republics (the US was never intended to be a pure democracy) at the time the Constitution was written. The tyranny of mob (majority)rule was as much of a consideration as tyranny by a king. The Electoral College was intended to be a check on rule of the mob. This is also why every state gets 2 senators. The founders intention was very much to prevent the kind of things that eventually happened during the French Revolution.

monocasa 5y ago
The electoral college was almost entirely intended to be a component of the compromises with slave holding states. That's why the number of electors is the number of congressmen from a state, your two senators plus the number of representatives. Originally the president was simply going to be elected by congress directly, but it was decided that that was an issue with separation of powers. Then a direct popular vote was suggested, but that had the same 'issue' that led to the three fifths compromise, so instead it's a vote from each state weighted by the same algorithm that became the three fifths compromise for federal representation in congress. James Madison saying at the time > 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. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=002/llfr002.db&recNum=60&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00218%29%29%230020061&linkText=1 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=00...
- zozbot234 5y ago
  This is only a big factor so long as a large, disenfranchised population (whether as a result of slavery or Jim Crow) is concentrated in a minority of states. Black people ended up fixing this by voting with their feet and migrating en masse out of the segregationist South.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    No, it's a compromise that explicitly accepted it's poor approximation of the popular vote in exchange for getting the slave holding states on board with staying in the union by allowing them to partially count slaves towards federal representation while still not treating them as full people who could vote. Now we're simply left with a poor approximation of the popular vote. I fail to see how the migration of black people after emancipation makes that better. If anything their migration to north east cities while keeping the electoral college means that they continue to have less federal representation.

monocasa 5y ago

The electoral college was almost entirely intended to be a component of the compromises with slave holding states. That's why the number of electors is the number of congressmen from a state, your two senators plus the number of representatives. Originally the president was simply going to be elected by congress directly, but it was decided that that was an issue with separation of powers. Then a direct popular vote was suggested, but that had the same 'issue' that led to the three fifths compromise, so instead it's a vote from each state weighted by the same algorithm that became the three fifths compromise for federal representation in congress. James Madison saying at the time > 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. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=002/llfr002.db&recNum=60&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00218%29%29%230020061&linkText=1 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=00...

zozbot234 5y ago
This is only a big factor so long as a large, disenfranchised population (whether as a result of slavery or Jim Crow) is concentrated in a minority of states. Black people ended up fixing this by voting with their feet and migrating en masse out of the segregationist South.
- monocasa 5y ago
  No, it's a compromise that explicitly accepted it's poor approximation of the popular vote in exchange for getting the slave holding states on board with staying in the union by allowing them to partially count slaves towards federal representation while still not treating them as full people who could vote. Now we're simply left with a poor approximation of the popular vote. I fail to see how the migration of black people after emancipation makes that better. If anything their migration to north east cities while keeping the electoral college means that they continue to have less federal representation.