Ending America's Oldest Affirmitive Action Program

[civvver]

"republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive, we're not in Civilization, only in forums talking about it.

Yes but just pointing out our country wasn't setup to be majority rule and for specific reasons.

The US Senate is the correct way to do federalism. Equal representation in an upper house for the different federal units is a reasonably common principle, and a large part of why federations exist.

The Electoral College is rank lunacy. It was created to let slave states count their slaves toward representation share, without letting them vote. And the "give small states a voice" justification doesn't make sense. Firstly, the states given "voice" via sitting near the centre of a pendulum are almost completely random and often aren't particularly small. Secondly, the president is just one person - he can't have "multiple voices" - and the electoral college voters by design have no voice beyond a one-and-done choice. Multiple voices, and voice for small federal units, is what the legislature is for.

Actually no one got to vote directly for president in those days so saying without letting the slaves vote is a little misleading. IIRC, locals voted for electors, I'm actually not even sure if they voted for the electors, they may have voted for state legislatures who picked the electors. I do know until 1913 the state legislatures chose the senators for that state.

*sigh*

The Founding Fathers weren't concerned with 2017. They were transitioning from the 1776 design of the federal government (which didn't work) to something that would work in 1787.

Under the initial design of the Articles of Confederation, each state had one vote. That didn't work well, though the number of action items that required unanimity to address probably had more to do with that than anything else. Any solution that was going to take more or less had to protect the states with lesser population (which were strongly advantaged by a one-state-one-vote rule), who weren't going to sign on to Madison's plan because it so obviously titled things relative to the status quo in favor of his state particularly as well as the other relatively higher population states like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York.

Yes, the Electoral College is broken today. The main thing that's surprising about it is that it worked as well as it did during the 20th Century. The concept of one-man-one-vote wasn't really a thing until the 20th Century. It isn't quite enough to say that the Constitution wasn't designed around that concept - if we're being precise about it, the Constitution was explicitly designed with violating that concept in mind.

Yes pretty much. People don't seem to understand how recent it is that people cast a vote for the president directly. And the electoral college needs some tweaking or change or something, but it's not a total dumpster fire like many like to portray it as.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes but just pointing out our country wasn't setup to be majority rule and for specific reasons.

Specific reasons that are more or less odious to most people living in the US today, and that include a belief in basic human inequality.

but it's not a total dumpster fire like many like to portray it as.

You act like there is an objective way to answer this question, but of course there isn't. To someone like myself who believes the candidate who gets the most votes should win, it is a dumpster fire.

 

[Farm Boy]

And the economy is apparently up these days to match all the pithy words of the year going around. Huh.

 

[civvver]

Idk, you somewhat marginalize everyone who doesn't live in new york, california or texas if you go to popular vote system. I like being considered from a rust belt state as important. There are worse ways to do things, like what if congress elected the president lol that would be horrible.

Although, a popular vote system might enable a third party to actually do something or have an impact in an election. So maybe I am for it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Idk, you somewhat marginalize everyone who doesn't live in new york, california or texas if you go to popular vote system.

Those states only contain a quarter of the electorate. How is the rest of the country marginalised when they could consistently bury those three states, should they so choose?

It's like saying that you could dominate Britain just by winning Scotland, London and Northern Ireland, and the Remain campaign can you that doesn't really work in practice.

 

[Arwon]

Actually no one got to vote directly for president in those days so saying without letting the slaves vote is a little misleading. IIRC, locals voted for electors, I'm actually not even sure if they voted for the electors, they may have voted for state legislatures who picked the electors. I do know until 1913 the state legislatures chose the senators for that state.

Did I say "vote directly for president"? I did not. Unless you're contending one of:

• There were no elections in slave era America
• Slaves could vote
• Slave population did not count towards apportionment of representation to each state

I'm not sure what argument you think you are having with me.

 

[Zkribbler]

IIRC, locals voted for electors, I'm actually not even sure if they voted for the electors, they may have voted for state legislatures ...

They voted for electors. What I don't know is if they were pledged to a particular candidate and, if so, how binding that pledge was.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They voted for electors. What I don't know is if they were pledged to a particular candidate and, if so, how binding that pledge was.

The intent (as I understand it) was that electors would always be free to make up their own mind. They were supposed to function as a check against objectively bad people being elected to the Presidency. If I understood a recent NPR story correctly (and I may not have as I wasn't fully engaged), the 'faithless elector' laws couldn't actually be enforced if challenged as they are unconstitutional.

In reality, the US never developed a tradition of faithless electors because reasons. By now it's taken for granted that they will elect who they're told to elect with only a small number of faithless electors over the years. Also, political parties in many states directly select the electors they send so the chances of them actually becoming faithless electors is very slim because they are political partisans to begin with.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe FE would be an issue if Trump didn't win so many of the pledged electors. Is it realistic that enough would not vote for him to alter the election?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Maybe FE would be an issue if Trump didn't win so many of the pledged electors. Is it realistic that enough would not vote for him to alter the election?

No it's not realistic at all, unfortunately.

I'm not saying things had to be this way nor will it necessarily always function this way. However, it would take an absolutely massive, broad-based, far-reaching reform of our electoral process to change it. That or a very long, drawn out process of state legislatures individually changing the way the EC electors are selected in their states to make it a less partisan process. The chances of the latter happening without the former are minuscule.

 

[Farm Boy]

State legislators seem to have the habit of suing to overturn anti-gerrymandering legislation that skoots through by referendum, if that puts the issue in about the right light.

I may be overgeneralizing from the article I'm half-remembering, but I don't think I'm reaching very far.

 

[onejayhawk]

Rural areas have more power because of how the political system works.

It's also how the system was designed to work. True slavery was an element, but only one. Virginia was the cultural center of the country and did not wish to kowtow to Boston, Philadelphia, and New York. It's a big reason why the Capital is located where it is.

I love your solution. Few people can say, "Give me everything I want." so obliquely.

Why would you be more concerned with protecting land than people?

No one said they were. This was about protecting people in less populated areas.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

The intent (as I understand it) was that electors would always be free to make up their own mind. They were supposed to function as a check against objectively bad people being elected to the Presidency.

"Challenge accepted."

It's also how the system was designed to work. True slavery was an element, but only one. Virginia was the cultural center of the country and did not wish to kowtow to Boston, Philadelphia, and New York.

I mean, if you can call tobacco and being in debt to the Scots "culture". I wouldn't put over-much faith in the self-image of Tuckahoe gentleman.

No one said they were. This was about protecting people in less populated areas.

What about people in less populated parts of large states? The current system devalues the votes of people in rural New York while exaggerating those of people in urban Idaho. If it was on a county-by-county basis, it might work- at least the most heavily-populated counties are as a rule heavily urban- but at this distance from actual, flesh-and-bone human beings, you lose all detail.

 

[Bootstoots]

"Challenge accepted."

But where would we be, without having committed a long series of genocides and wars of aggression from coast to coast? Where would the Industrial Revolution in the UK or US have been without the vast quantities of cheap cotton produced by treating humans worse than cattle? He embodies the ruthless logic of settler colonialism, which is the original sin that objectively Made America Great before the Again had to be attached. I hate him, but he was very effective at what he did, and Americans (mostly the white ones) still reap the benefits of Jacksonianism to this day.

 

[sophie]

"Challenge accepted."

I mean, to be fair to the electors, they did do their job in 1824. It's not their fault the electorate was so incompetent that they would demand a wholly unsuitable candidate not once, but twice (or, uh, thrice, I suppose).

*ETA* nvm, it was that Congress did their job; Jackson won a plurality of electors in 1824.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Well, I'd say it was kind of a thing in the 19th century.

That's more or less how I'd put it, at least when we're talking about the latter portion of the 19th Century. I'd stop short of characterizing it as an idea with real currency during that time frame, but if you want to characterize it as a fringe belief at the time then I'm not going to argue with you.

It's somewhere south of Roosevelt and north of Wilson's second term where the populace started to take the notion seriously, and further out before you start to see the law recognize the principle in actual practice.