another reason electoral college is bad

[i'vegotwinners]

LOL. Women and blacks would have included an article about how the new government would have eliminated state sovereignty over voting and slavery? How would have that worked? We fought a bloody civil war to accomplish one of those things. Do you really think the war could have been avoided?

troll.

first you want to know how it would have affected the Constitution.

then when i tell you, you want to narrow the parameters to just slavery.. (a national right to vote for women and minorities of age would have trumped states disallowing them).

as for slavery, perhaps we would be much better off without the south dragging us down the last 250 yrs, and they could have begged to come back after they got their heads out of their racist asses.

stop with the constant trolling, and get your head out of your ass as well.

not sure what you think it's getting you.

 

[Digressions]

There were colonial elections. All they had to do was add them up. Remember suffrage was very limited.

Then why the need for electors? How in one thread am I arguing about the bill of rights with people that say the framers gave us all these rights to protect the individual from an overreaching tyrannical government and in this thread I'm finding out those same people didn't think we were smart enough to cast our own vote for president and therefore needed an elected official(aka a government official)? So I decided to do my own homework.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70
Hamilton in No. 68:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom (the president)so important a trust was to be confided."

So Hamilton gives us the reason for electors. He didn't trust that individuals would be capable of making a well informed choice, or know what qualities we should be looking for in a president, but it was desirable for electors to follow the will of the people?

But that doesn't answer why the disproportionate number of electors for each state? So, let's go to Madison in No. 10:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

So what did Madison get right and wrong? Clearly he feared and had disdain for factions and parties. But this particular passage seems important: "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

It seems that Madison didn't foresee the two party system, and thought that states(or smaller factions) would be the parties. But it's clear that he dismissed the possibility of minority rule through "regular vote".


And finally here is a contemporaneously released paper that is arguing for a NPV:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-72

"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?"

That's a good question. A cursory glance at the relevant days of debate shows me no instance of the Convention even considering that question. The ones who were opposed to a popular vote invariably rested on the argument that the people at large would not be qualified to choose the best Executive. I can't find any instance of one of the Founders actually asking whether or not it was even practically feasible.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Then why the need for electors? How in one thread am I arguing about the bill of rights with people that say the framers gave us all these rights to protect the individual from an overreaching tyrannical government and in this thread I'm finding out those same people didn't think we were smart enough to cast our own vote for president and therefore needed an elected official(aka a government official)? So I decided to do my own homework.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70
Hamilton in No. 68:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom (the president)so important a trust was to be confided."

So Hamilton gives us the reason for electors. He didn't trust that individuals would be capable of making a well informed choice, or know what qualities we should be looking for in a president, but it was desirable for electors to follow the will of the people?

But that doesn't answer why the disproportionate number of electors for each state? So, let's go to Madison in No. 10:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

So what did Madison get right and wrong? Clearly he feared and had disdain for factions and parties. But this particular passage seems important: "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

It seems that Madison didn't foresee the two party system, and thought that states(or smaller factions) would be the parties. But it's clear that he dismissed the possibility of minority rule through "regular vote".


And finally here is a contemporaneously released paper that is arguing for a NPV:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-72

"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?"

The biggest fault of the founders is that they did not foresee the reality of national partisan politics. That is why I said their system failed in 1796.

 

[UncleMark]

The biggest fault of the founders is that they did not foresee the reality of national partisan politics. That is why I said their system failed in 1796.

I hindsight, it's astonishing how badly they got that wrong. They did fear "factionalism" and took measures to thwart it or otherwise limit its influence, but those measures were an abject failure. My shithouse theory is that they feared the factionalism of the masses, but assumed the ruling elites wouldn't be so driven by it and the measures in place to minimize it among those ruling elites would suffice. Turned out those bastards weren't any better than the masses.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The biggest fault of the founders is that they did not foresee the reality of national partisan politics. That is why I said their system failed in 1796.

Washington foresaw it, but no one listened.

 

[UncleMark]

The biggest fault of the founders is that they did not foresee the reality of national partisan politics. That is why I said their system failed in 1796.

Washington foresaw it, but no one listened.

Not sure anything could have been done, though. Everything I understand about the times tells me the Revolution of 1800 was inevitable.

 

[Cortez88]

Then why the need for electors? How in one thread am I arguing about the bill of rights with people that say the framers gave us all these rights to protect the individual from an overreaching tyrannical government and in this thread I'm finding out those same people didn't think we were smart enough to cast our own vote for president and therefore needed an elected official(aka a government official)? So I decided to do my own homework.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70
Hamilton in No. 68:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom (the president)so important a trust was to be confided."

So Hamilton gives us the reason for electors. He didn't trust that individuals would be capable of making a well informed choice, or know what qualities we should be looking for in a president, but it was desirable for electors to follow the will of the people?

But that doesn't answer why the disproportionate number of electors for each state? So, let's go to Madison in No. 10:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

So what did Madison get right and wrong? Clearly he feared and had disdain for factions and parties. But this particular passage seems important: "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

It seems that Madison didn't foresee the two party system, and thought that states(or smaller factions) would be the parties. But it's clear that he dismissed the possibility of minority rule through "regular vote".


And finally here is a contemporaneously released paper that is arguing for a NPV:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-72

"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?"

Hamilton was A genius. He was also a huge snob who did not trust the masses. He feared populism much more than he ever feared a king. That drives much of his political worldview as expressed in the FPs.

 

[Digressions]

Hamilton was A genius. He was also a huge snob who did not trust the masses. He feared populism much more than he ever feared a king. That drives much of his political worldview as expressed in the FPs.

One thing is clear. Our current political situation is the antithesis of what our framers intended. I wonder which Federalist paper will describe why letting Russian nationals donate millions of dollars to the NRA, is a good idea? We should all pledge allegiance around that. Surely it was their original intent

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Then why the need for electors? How in one thread am I arguing about the bill of rights with people that say the framers gave us all these rights to protect the individual from an overreaching tyrannical government and in this thread I'm finding out those same people didn't think we were smart enough to cast our own vote for president and therefore needed an elected official(aka a government official)? So I decided to do my own homework.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70
Hamilton in No. 68:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom (the president)so important a trust was to be confided."

So Hamilton gives us the reason for electors. He didn't trust that individuals would be capable of making a well informed choice, or know what qualities we should be looking for in a president, but it was desirable for electors to follow the will of the people?

But that doesn't answer why the disproportionate number of electors for each state? So, let's go to Madison in No. 10:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

So what did Madison get right and wrong? Clearly he feared and had disdain for factions and parties. But this particular passage seems important: "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote."

It seems that Madison didn't foresee the two party system, and thought that states(or smaller factions) would be the parties. But it's clear that he dismissed the possibility of minority rule through "regular vote".


And finally here is a contemporaneously released paper that is arguing for a NPV:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-72

"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?"

The FF’s didn’t see the office of POTUS as it is. The office was an administrative position and also CIC to keep the military under civilian control. Goat was exactly right when he noted that separation of powers was an issue with having the House make the choice. So they kicked the ball to the state legislatures to choose through indirect means. The EC was not seen as being elected. The real seat of power was thought to be the House of Representatives—the only body to be elected. With the senate and the president in the hands of the elected state legislatures, the power and influence of the federal government would be held in check.

I like the system as originally intended. I simply think we have too much voting and that has caused a myriad of other problems including all the legalized corruption the elected federal officials have given us. (Such as Russians giving money to the NRA). We have problems now with the people and those who have served as president thinking the office is more important than it is or ought to be. In my view an NPV for POTUS will aggravate many of the the problems if for no other reason than the people and the office holder will come to see the office of POTUS as the “people’s president”. That attaches too much emotional gravitas to the office and the office holder.

 

[VanPastorMan]

trump acting like a dick to so called blue states has no political ramifications at all for him, he could lose the popular vote by 10 million this time and still win the election. every vote should count the same there is absolutely no reason for me to vote in November.

The EC is great. It means that states like NY and California can't decide who is going to be in the White House. The EC is a check on states and the power and influence they might have if it was not there.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The biggest fault of the founders is that they did not foresee the reality of national partisan politics. That is why I said their system failed in 1796.

Washington foresaw it, but no one listened.

and yet here we are, with most of the board, including the most holier than thou crowd, fighting with all their might for party, not principle, and never letting principle stand in the way of party.

especially problematic when "neither" party, (as if they both didn't serve the same ''one master" on everything economic), stands for principle, which is way too often..

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The biggest fault of the founders is that they did not foresee the reality of national partisan politics. That is why I said their system failed in 1796.

what the founders didn't see was govt, all branches, falling under the control of money.

and even the parties themselves falling under the control of money.

and the control of money falling under the control of non human inanimate amoral entities, corporations, whose only loyalty is not to country, or to citizenry, or even to party, but to the unalterable algorithm that is "capitalism the force". (not to be confused with "capitalism" the economic system/model, that can and does exist on it's own, only in theory).

"Sorry Dave, i can't do that".

then those same inanimate amoral entities with only one loyalty, taking near total control of nearly all public podiums, directly or indirectly, thus controlling the flow of information and opinion and agenda, thus elections and subsequently nearly all economic policy, then actively and overtly pitting the citizenry against one another on social policies, as a diversion from capitalism the force's near total takeover of virtually all economic policy.