Electoral College

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and historical ignorance regarding the Electoral College and the intention of the Framers who created it. This is a handy article from History.com regarding the EC: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

Briefly:

1) The EC was a last minute compromise at the Constitutional Convention after several methods of electing a chief executive had already been rejected and after months of debate: "“It wasn’t like the Founders said, ‘Hey, what a great idea! This is the preferred way to select the chief executive, period,’” says Edwards. “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.”"

2) The Electors were supposed to exercise their individual judgment and pick the most qualified candidates. There were no national political parties at the time and there was no anticipation that the Electors would be bound by voting rules;

3) The system was set up to avoid the election of a unqualified demagogue appealing to the base instincts of the electorate:

"Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power."

4) Later changes have radically altered the effect of the EC and it now does not in any way, shape or manner fulfill its task in the way the Framers intended. Almost all States now require the Electors be chosen from a list provided by a the political party which got the most votes in the State and most require the individual Electors to vote for the candidate of that party. This effectively ends an independent judgment of the Electors and such judgment was the whole point of the EC.

So it's an antiquated system that doesn't work as its creators intended.

@no1marauder said
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and historical ignorance regarding the Electoral College and the intention of the Framers who created it. This is a handy article from History.com regarding the EC: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

Briefly:

1) The EC was a last minute compromise at the Constitutional C ...[text shortened]... e whole point of the EC.

So it's an antiquated system that doesn't work as its creators intended.

Some right wingers here insist it was intended to minimize the power of high density urban areas as compared to rural areas (an effect the system now in place has). But this couldn't have been an intention of the Framers because of the simple fact that very few Americans lived in "cities" at the time of the Constitutional Convention:

"In 1790, only about one out of every twenty Americans (on average) lived in urban areas (cities)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

Only 5 "cities" in the US had more than 10,000 inhabitants in 1790 and only 10 had more than 5,000. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/10-most-populous-u-s-cities-1790/

The population of the US was a shade less than 4 million in 1790. https://www.iowadatacenter.org/datatables/UnitedStates/usstpopulation17902010.pdf

@kevcvs57 said
How were these electors chosen and put in place?

@no1marauder said
There seems to be a lot of misconceptions and historical ignorance regarding the Electoral College and the intention of the Framers who created it. This is a handy article from History.com regarding the EC: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

Briefly:

1) The EC was a last minute compromise at the Constitutional C ...[text shortened]... e whole point of the EC.

So it's an antiquated system that doesn't work as its creators intended.

@no1marauder said
Some right wingers here insist it was intended to minimize the power of high density urban areas as compared to rural areas (an effect the system now in place has). But this couldn't have been an intention of the Framers because of the simple fact that very few Americans lived in "cities" at the time of the Constitutional Convention:

"In 1790, only about one out of eve ...[text shortened]... 4 million in 1790. https://www.iowadatacenter.org/datatables/UnitedStates/usstpopulation17902010.pdf

@joe-shmo said
I guess the Framers weren't trying to estimate the future state of America when they wrote the Constitution either?

The fact that there weren't large urban areas in those days doesn't mean they weren't planning on there being large urban areas in America. I think you'd have to be a fool to not expect that and thusly make suitable arrangements for it. Are you saying the Framers were fools?

@suzianne said
It's finally time to let go of the Republican fairy tales.

Maybe you can call them "Trump stories" or whatever you can be comfortable with. But it is now time to move on from the ridiculous to the real.

@no1marauder
I think the senate is 50 50 now, in that case with Kamala casting deciding votes, is it possible to kill the electoral college? Does it take a 75% vote to do it? Not sure.

@joe-shmo said
I guess the Framers weren't trying to estimate the future state of America when they wrote the Constitution either?

The fact that there weren't large urban areas in those days doesn't mean they weren't planning on there being large urban areas in America. I think you'd have to be a fool to not expect that and thusly make suitable arrangements for it. Are you saying the Framers were fools?

@joe-shmo
Ah, so you are going to be one of the holdouts forever thinking dems won by cheating and therefore a coup not an election and therefore you can rationalize being a thorn in the side of America for the next 4 years?

What about the part where Americans need to drop the weapons and start working together, recognizing different POV's and get things done.

You do know Moscow Mitch held up almost ALL dem bills for the last 10 years, dumped in the trash.

THAT is over. Repubs and Dems now will start working things out, going back to talks producing compromises but real gains for the US.

You have to start thinking like that or else you will be back trying to recreate the civil war.

@sonhouse said
@no1marauder
I think the senate is 50 50 now, in that case with Kamala casting deciding votes, is it possible to kill the electoral college? Does it take a 75% vote to do it? Not sure.

@sonhouse said
@joe-shmo
Ah, so you are going to be one of the holdouts forever thinking dems won by cheating and therefore a coup not an election and therefore you can rationalize being a thorn in the side of America for the next 4 years?

What about the part where Americans need to drop the weapons and start working together, recognizing different POV's and get things done.

You do ...[text shortened]... .

You have to start thinking like that or else you will be back trying to recreate the civil war.

Ah, so you are going to be one of the holdouts forever thinking dems won by cheating and therefore a coup not an election and therefore you can rationalize being a thorn in the side of America for the next 4 years?

@no1marauder said
The Senate isn't 50-50 and won't be unless the Democrats win both runoffs in Georgia on January 5th. I'd say they would be slight favorites in one and slight underdogs in the other.

No, abolition of the EC would require a Constitutional amendment.

@shavixmir said
Correct.
But individual States can decide to devide their college seats according to the percentages won, if they want.

Is there not a mechanism that can force them to do so, which can circumvemt the Senate?