Skip to comments.Direct Election of President Considered by Founding Fathers
Posted on 01/26/2011 5:09:06 AM PST by MichaelNewton
Many today want to get rid of the electoral college method of choosing our president. For example, there is a book called Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. It has quite a lot of good information in it, though the author draws the wrong conclusion. Or search Google for electoral college failure and browse through some of the 333,000 results. Attacks on the electoral college system accelerated after the 2000 election in which Al Gore won more popular votes but George Bush won the electoral college. The Founding Fathers considered, debated, and voted on different methods of choosing a president during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 before choosing the one they thought best.
Deciding how to select or elect the president was one of the most difficult decisions the Founding Fathers had to make during the Convention. They held at least sixteen votes on this one issue...
(Excerpt) Read more at whatwouldthefoundersthink.com ...
Getting rid of the Electoral College is a pet project of George Soros.
The electoral college is constitutional and as such should be kept and in tact.
Isn't the vote for president in each state democratic? And isn't each states electoral power relative to its numbers? Then what's the difference?
We may get the occasional popular/electoral schism, but basically it's the same thing. Defenders base their arguments on tradition and appeal to authority--the founders wanted it, so it must be good.
I don't think it makes a difference either way. The electoral system merely puts federalist lipstick on a nationalist pig.
Its probably the only thing that has prevented a second civil war so far. Presidents would be elected by a handfull of far left cities and flyover country would be boiling.
The subject of the Electoral College and it’s role in preserving the framework of the Republic is a good and suitable subject for discussion, particularly on this forum.
Why then, do you deny us the chance to read your thoughts in their entirety? Would it not be fitting to post your entire essay here?
So many people are clueless about our system of government.
The USA is a democratically elected Constitutional Republic.
Did anyone take civics in high school???
Anyone who wants to completely kill whatever sovereignty and power the states have over the feds will be on board to eliminate the electoral college. Count me out.
One state one vote, if they win the election in that state then they recieve it’s one and only vote.
Electoral College 2012
WIKI The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people, the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.
In the Federalist No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.
Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions.
Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.
Your lack of understanding of the function of the Electoral College is profound.
Using just a raw, direct election means that the biggest population centers get to dictate who the POTUS is. In modern America, that means that the coastal, liberal, urban voters would get their marxist choice every time and the other 47 or so states would mean nothing.
Without going into specific detail, the Electoral College makes it possible for the minority populations of the “flyover” states to have at least a shot at having a say in the outcome, meaning that the POTUS is chosen by a consensus of as many states as possible and not just the most heavily populated urban areas.
This brilliant concept is EXTREMELY important to the health of the Republic and is why George Soros and all other marxists want the Electoral College to disappear so that the marxist urban centers can always choose the POTUS based simply on raw population size and desire to redistribute wealth to those population centers.
That sentence implies that the founders had the power to simply decide how to pick the president. They didn't, since the states formed the union and not the other way around.
The founders had to find a method that was acceptable to the original states (or colonies), or the founding would not have taken place.
Although the author didn’t say it specifically, I think one of the benefits of the electoral college is that it gives smaller states a well-defined role and vote. It has often been observed that if the President were popularly elected, candidates would pay the most attention to the largest centers of population in their campaigning. Worse, the effect of concentrated vote fraud in a couple of areas... say, Chicago and Philadelphia, would have a national effect, rather than “just” a statewide effect. (I’m well aware that Florida and Chicago voting irregularities affected Bush-Gore and Nixon-Kennedy, but they did so in their respective states.)
Why not just post it here?
That's a very good and important point. The individual states were there to make sure their own interests were represented in the way the choice would be made.
Any changes to the system should be made in the same way, with the small states having input so that their interests are protected and not bullied out of the way by the big, marxist urban centers.
We would be a full on marxist nation by now.
Gotta figure, even Obama isn’t far enough left for New York, San fransico, L.A., and Boston.
Agreed. For the simple question of "why should the vote of the island of Manhattan cancel the vote of the entire state of Wyoming?"
The Founding Fathers were nothing short of brilliant.
That's how it works anyway. Haven't you seen the county by county maps? In each state, the majority of the votes of that state come from the heavily populated urban centers. Hence, the electoral votes of each state are weighted in favor of the urban centers.
the Electoral College makes it possible for the minority populations of the flyover states to have at least a shot at having a say in the outcome, meaning that the POTUS is chosen by a consensus of as many states as possible and not just the most heavily populated urban areas.
Rubbish. How are electoral votes determined? By population. Hence California has 55 electoral votes, and Montana has 3. How is that any extra advantage to Montana? It isn't. It's six in one, half-dozen the other.
This brilliant concept is EXTREMELY important to the health of the Republic
No, it's actually pretty meaningless.
Under the Electoral College system it is theoretically possible for a president to be elected by somewhere around 25% of the vote, with about 75% of the vote going to his losing opponent.
All you need is 51% in each of the states that make up a bare majority in the EC, and near 100% in each of the remainder for the opponent.
Won’t ever happen, of course. However, since most Americans believe the president’s legitimate authority derives from popular approval, not obscure 18th century political compromises, it seems reasonable to me that considering an amendment to modify the selection proces is not unreasonable.
That also won’t happen, of course, as it requires the states and interests that get disproportionate influence from the EC to acquiesce in their own disempowerment.
Personally, the amendment I am most in favor of would make amending the Constitution easier to accomplish. Then perhaps we could get back to running our government on a truly constitutional basis rather than the present euphemisms and pretenses.
Honestly, I think that his is, and he wants to drag the entire country there as fast as possible if he only could.
That's what makes him so dangerous. He is a capable enemy.
How's that work, exactly?
Gore won overwhelmingly in these areas and just barely squeaked out a victory in the popular vote. In the vast majority of presidential elections to date the popular vote and the EC went for the same candidate.
If the election was by popular vote, election strategies would change, but I don't see either party gaining an overwhelming advantage from the change.
At present the election is in practice decided by less than 10 states, where the vast majority of the campaigning takes place.
It does anyway. NY gets 20 electoral votes. Wyoming gets 3. NY gets roughly 7 votes to Wyoming's 1 vote. Meanwhile, NY state has a population of roughly 20 million, with NYC accounting for close to half of that. That means that NYC alone accounts for roughly half of NY state's electoral votes, which would equal 3.5--more than the entire state of Wyoming.
Electoral votes are proportional, and each state's votes are dominated by the urban areas. So how exactly does the electoral college help Wyoming?
It makes a huge difference. Each state has a number of electors to the EC equal to their number of representatives plus their number of senators.
The EC has the same weighting as Congress, where the House is based on population, and the Senate is two senators per state regardless of population.
If you really believe what you posted, you should also advocate abolishing the US Senate. And Al Gore would have been president in 2000 without the EC.
When the framers nationalized and consolidated the Union into one government, they obliterated federalism. The big states all demanded, and got, proportional representation.
It would make sense for like-minded, similar states to band together. Thought bubble----what if the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas united into one state? Then they might have some pull.
What people believe, as opposed to what is true and correct, is not the issue. There are real reasons that the contract between the states and the Federal Government in distributing and assigning power are the way they are.
The current public school system is failing us in teaching this generation just why things are the way they are. THAT is what needs to be changed, not the brilliant mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution that created the greatest Republic that the world has ever seen.
I would even respectfully go so far as to suggest that perhaps even you have been "dumbed down" in your education if you don't see the justice and protection against the tyranny-of-the-majority inherent in the system that the Founding Fathers have built. It is not always apparent on first glance, but a good study of it shows how the genius of the ages has been brought to bear on the question of how best man is to rule himself.
Equal protection under the law and freedom from tyranny of all kinds is VERY difficult to provide. And tinkering with this system ALWAYS makes it worse once you start looking carefully at it "under the hood."
Perfectly constitutional, if the states and Congress agree.
How these states would increase their clout by reducing their representation in the Senate from 10 to 2, and their votes in the EC by 8 requires math that is beyond my skill level.
I am not referring to the number of electoral votes of the 2 states, or the ratio of votes per state. At the moment, Wyoming does of electoral votes, be they only 3, but take away the EC and they have nothing.
It's difficult for me to express what I am trying to say with the written word.
A common delusion. The Constitution is a pact among "the people of the United States," not between the states and the federal government. The preamble was carefully worded.
Since every state gets the +2, it's meaningless. That leaves proportionality, which means big states' power is tied to their population. So it's no difference at all. Big states dominate, and the cities dominate within the states.
By population alone, CA would generate 12% of the total vote, while MT would be 0.3%
By elector, CA provides 10% of the total and MT 0.6%
It's not much individually, but it provides for a level of influence from smaller states.
No, they'd have exactly what they have now--virtually no say at all in their president.
If my math is correct, under the electoral college, Wyoming represents .005 of the electoral college---half of one percent. They simply don't matter.
You're right of course. I always think of it as the States representing the People. Maybe I should have been more particular.
Half of one percent is totally meaningless. It makes NO difference.
You’ve got it backwards. I would keep the Senate, and eliminate the House—and the executive.
Democrats always want to get rid of the Electoral College when they have a chump loser in at the helm.
It makes the cheatin’ so much easier.
There are lots of people who think the States created the Constitution. Even (perhaps especially) on this site.
In fact, of course, the sovereign people withdrew some elements of the sovereignty they had delegated to the states and delegated those portions instead to the federal government, leaving the remaining elements with the states, creating the mixed system we call federalism.
That this system is commonly abused doesn’t change what it is.
True, just like the Constitution. And the Electoral College.
WY has about .5M people, out of a country of 300m or so. In a popular election they control 1 vote in 600 for president, or about .16%.
WY has 3 votes in the EC out of 535 or about .56%.
WY has little clout in the EC, but each WY voter has about 3.5x the clout he would in a popular election. The clout of the inhabitants of the bigger states is reduced accordingly.
You honestly think the difference between less than 1% and even less than 1% makes a difference? It doesn’t. It’s a rounding error.
Weighted in favor and a drop-dead runaway are two different things. I believe that the difference is significant. You seem to diminish the significance to nothing.
If there is no significance, then why bother changing it? Why does it bother you?
What is your true agenda in calling for its abolition?
Based on my response to your nonsensical post #4, that response is even more nonsensical.
So, do you still think this
I don't think it makes a difference either way.
about the Electoral College?
The electoral college was phony Federalism from the start. I've never read a single article that makes a case for how the end result differs from direct election.
Can't say I blame you for wanting to pretend you never made those statements.
That's all true, but it's a lot of semantics. The people didn't vote on the Constitution. Delegates to state conventions voted on it. In other words, the politicians of the day voted on it.
You are correct to point out the "We the People". It's an important distinction. The Constitution consolidated the states into one republic. The states lost their sovereignty when the Constitution was ratified. What powers they retained they did so only at the pleasure of the national system.
What are you babbling about? What statement am I pretending I didn’t make?
I don't care if it gets changed or not. I would probably lean towards getting rid of it, just so the phony facade would be gone and the reality of our system would be made more obvious.
What is your true agenda in calling for its abolition?
I didn't and don't call for its abolition. I'm merely pointing out that it's totally irrelevant. I make similar arguments regarding the 17th amendment. Some people seem to think that change mattered, when in reality it didn't. It was phony federalism from the start.
Lol, why not elaborate on your #4. Perhaps you have more enlightenment to offer on the subject of the Electoral College.
Talk about babble. Lol.
What is there to elaborate on? I think it’s pretty clearly written.
OK, gotcha. I misunderstood. :0)
You don't know when to quit.
But how do you assess the Algore administration's performance after their victory in the 2000 presidential race?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.