Origins and Nature of the US Electoral College

[Lexicus]

The electoral college gave less populous states more clout, if it didn't Hillary's supporters wouldn't care... The 3/5ths compromise gave slave states more clout, or less depending on if you thought slaves should count like everyone else in the census.

So do you not understand that electors were apportioned to states on the basis of the 3/5th compromise, or do you not see how that fact is relevant to this discussion?

 

[Arwon]

The United States is the only country which elects a strong executive president by this indirect "weighted count of pluralities" method (Argentina used to, but then Argentina fought a civil war over centre v periphery power dynamics and the college there was explicit measure to constrain Buenos Aires), even among other federations.

So the system can't just be defended as "oh well we have states" as I often seen done, because so do Mexico, Argentina and Brazil among US-style presidential republics.

Federalism isn't a unique US institution. Nothing about federalism requires this election method - it was created to deal with slave owners and never corrected. Other federal republics don't use an electoral college to attenuate the popular vote for president with what amounts to a randomised rural malapportionment.

It doesn't even make any sense to use federalism as an argument here - "giving small states more voice" and whatnot. Upper houses are where you ensure smaller subnational entities have sufficient voice. Because senators actually have ongoing distinct voices. The electoral college doesn't give anyone a "say", electors don't speak or legislate, they're just a one-and-done conduit for counting votes weirdly. The president cannot be "the small states having a say" because the president is an indivisible person with one voice and a multifaceted mandate that can never be reduced to "represent the small states best".

It is a method probably more suited to choosing the powerless presidents of parliamentary republics, an alternative to parliamentary appointment and such. Like if the Germans or Indians used a count of state pluralities to elect their ceremonial president it would be eccentric but probably wouldn't matter much.

Even the lack of a second round between the two top candidates is somewhat atypical among presidential or semipresidential republics. Imagine the problems a runoff round would solve.

 

[Berzerker]

So do you not understand that electors were apportioned to states on the basis of the 3/5th compromise, or do you not see how that fact is relevant to this discussion?

I said the 3/5ths compromise gave more clout to slave states, or less if slaves should have been counted like everyone else in the census. But the electoral college did give less populous states more clout, thats why it was adopted. Thats what Madison was talking about when he said his solution raised the least objections. Removing the added clout for smaller states would have doomed the electoral college.

 

[Hygro]

Not acceding to the demands of the slave states would have doomed the republic, hence both the 3/5ths compromise that gave them more legislative power and the electoral college which gave them more voting power because of the 3/5ths compromise.

A direct vote would have made them significantly less powerful in selecting the president, because their 3/5ths people wouldn't be voting. So the electoral college gave the slave states what they wanted, enshrining their advantage.

 

[Berzerker]

if slaves were counted like everyone else the 3/5ths compromise actually made the slave states weaker

 

[uppi]

Like if the Germans [...] used a count of state pluralities to elect their ceremonial president it would be eccentric but probably wouldn't matter much.

No way, that would be much too direct. The German version of the electoral college is set up to be quite far away from any direct voter influence to prevent the office to have anything more than a minimum amount of democratic legitimacy.

 

[Hygro]

if slaves were counted like everyone else the 3/5ths compromise actually made the slave states weaker

Yes if the slave states got everything they asked for then both their representation and presidential selection power would have been even more in their favor.

 

[danjuno]

Another reason I've heard for the EC is that movement of information was so slow back then that even the restricted pool of voters they had would have trouble knowing who to vote for, so it was set up so that the state legislatures would appoint electors, the idea being that you could totally trust your state legislator to make the decision for you, since researching the positions of a candidate for the state house would be much easier than somebody from the other side of the country running nationally.

In any event, that logic no longer applies in the age of the internet, where there is no such thing as too little information, especially not on presidential candidates, so the EC is pretty much obsolete.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes if the slave states got everything they asked for then both their representation and presidential selection power would have been even more in their favor.

You make it sound like the slave states were getting special treatment, other people were counted for the census, why not slaves?

 

[Hygro]

You make it sound like the slave states were getting special treatment, other people were counted for the census, why not slaves?

That's weird, how would you translate slave owners' political power to slaves in your head?

 

[Arwon]

You make it sound like the slave states were getting special treatment, other people were counted for the census, why not slaves?

wow ok

 

[Berzerker]

That's weird, how would you translate slave owners' political power to slaves in your head?

I dont... many people couldn't vote but they still counted in the census

wow ok

no answer?

 

[Hygro]

I dont... many people couldn't vote but they still counted in the census

But only one such class of people existed in the slave states and not in the north, slaves.

The Dredd Scott case is the reminder that the South was not asking on behalf of more power so as to better represent their slaves as people deserving representation, as the slavers were legally able to declare such people property when that suited their interests.

 

[Lexicus]

The Dredd Scott case is the reminder that the South was not asking on behalf of more power so as to better represent their slaves as people deserving representation, as the slavers were legally able to declare such people property when that suited their interests.

It seems like the brutal reality of two centuries of stolen labor complete with routine murder, rape, and torture would disprove that more effectively than the Dred Scott case, but point taken.

I dont... many people couldn't vote but they still counted in the census

Actually, this brings up a good point as it wasn't only slavery that led the Southern states in particular to object to a popular vote for the Presidency - it was also the fact that white suffrage was far more widespread in the North than in the South, which tended to have higher property restrictions on voting at the time of the Constitutional convention.

 

[Berzerker]

But only one such class of people existed in the slave states and not in the north, slaves.

Not according to Lex... But so what?

The Dredd Scott case is the reminder that the South was not asking on behalf of more power so as to better represent their slaves as people deserving representation, as the slavers were legally able to declare such people property when that suited their interests.

Appropriating funds for infrastructure etc relies in part on the census for a reason, larger populations require more.

 

[Arwon]

no answer?

Yes that's clearly it.

 

[Berzerker]

I guess so

 

[BirraImperial]

The United States should abolish the Electoral College...Create a National (Federal) Election Board...This institution will oversee the elections from the primaries in each state all the way to a nationwide Presidential Election...Popular vote wins...If neither candidate reaches at least 40% of all votes, a second round takes place between the top 2 contenders...I'm sure the Electoral College served its purpose in the past, but now it's time to move on...Technology has evolved far enough so that overseeing elections over such a huge landmass like the US would be a doable task...

 

[Arwon]

It's not entirely clear to me why party candidate selection is even the subject of legislation

 

[rah]

Another reason I've heard for the EC is that movement of information was so slow back then that even the restricted pool of voters they had would have trouble knowing who to vote for, so it was set up so that the state legislatures would appoint electors, the idea being that you could totally trust your state legislator to make the decision for you, since researching the positions of a candidate for the state house would be much easier than somebody from the other side of the country running nationally.

In any event, that logic no longer applies in the age of the internet, where there is no such thing as too little information, especially not on presidential candidates, so the EC is pretty much obsolete.

If a majority of the people actually took the time to find and assimilate the available information, I might agree with you.
But the truth is, most people don't really know who they're voting for. How else could a totally incompetent person win.
The EC failed us here, but that's only because it doesn't function like it was originally intended to. So if there is any real complaint, it should be to let the system work like it was designed to. Or just eliminate it, of course. I don't have any issue with the EC concept.