The Convention considered and rejected Executive appointment/election by Congress, State Governors and the people. Corruption and backroom deal making were feared in the first two methods. A President could hardly be independent if he was beholden to Congress or Governors for his job. As for the third, there was no telling what sort of characters the people would fall for, and voting qualifications varied widely among the States; more liberal qualifications to the North and less so in the South. Direct democracy would be limited to the first branch, the House of Representatives.
Since appointment/election by Congress and the people were rejected, it left the process to the States. By diffusing the vote across a large and growing country in which geographically diverse electors had to vote on a single day, it would render corruption, intrigue and deal making difficult.
The overriding consideration, the ever present Bull-in-the-China Shop of the Convention was the small State near-paranoid fear of large States. In probably the majority of votes, small State fears had to be reckoned with. In deciding the Presidential voting strength of States, there was no way small States would submit to the proportion delineated in Article I Section 2 for the House of Representatives. Four to five populous States could dominate the first House of Representatives, and just as the small States got their way in the Senate (equality of suffrage) they demanded greater presence in the Presidential election than their meager populations justified. That is why the sum of Representatives and Senators determine a State’s electoral vote presence.
What if there was an electoral tie, or no candidate got a majority? In this situation the Senate was initially given the duty to elect a President. This was not regarded as a fall-back or demeaning method. Just the opposite, it was thought that in most elections, no one would achieve a majority vote from the States and therefore, most elections would end up in the Senate. However, this raised the problem of possible corruption between the tidy Senate and candidates. There were other problems as well. If impeached, which was not expected to be a rare occurrence, the President could hardly expect to be found guilty by the same men who put him in office. Also, some delegates, most notably George Mason of Virginia who would become a vociferous opponent of the Constitution, were already fearful of an overly aristocratic Senate.
What to do? Give the House of Representatives the responsibility instead. In the event of a tie, Congressmen immediately vote for one or the other for President. No intrigue was possible. Should no candidate get a majority, the House casts ballots by State, one vote per State from among the five highest vote getters.
Look at the system this way:
Small States demanded (as they did with the Senate) and got representation out of proportion to their population and wealth. Advantage small States.
In a tie, (not likely) Congressmen voted at-large. Advantage large States.
When no candidate achieved a majority (thought very likely), each State was allowed one vote to cast for one of the five highest vote getters. Thus the House of Representatives of the people, which favored large States would vote in a manner acceptable to small states. Brilliant. Advantage small States.
By this arrangement, small States felt secure against the large. In the two most probable electoral situations, they held the advantage.
Our Framers specifically rejected direct, popular election and instituted the filter of electors chosen outside the reach of federal power. In this sense, the States were expected in most elections to serve as nominating conventions of five candidates for the House of Reps to choose from.
This power to appoint Presidential electors, left to the judgment of State Legislatures, was a big plus for ratification at the State Ratifying Conventions. The electoral system was simultaneously new, yet familiar enough to be accepted.
Today as then, the process is not debauched, nor is “democracy” screwed if the House of Reps must do its duty and elect the President. Popular nationwide vote count be damned; it is irrelevant.
What came to be known as the Electoral College provided a corruption resistant method acceptable to suspicious, distrustful small States, yet reflected majoritarian, federal selection of this new guy to history, the President of the United States.
Electoral College ping!
The pro popular vote troll will be along shortly to pimp whatever his script tells him to say. (mvymvy)
If it weren’t for the Electoral College We would have President Egore in 2000 instead of President Bush.
Well stated. California, Texas,New York, and Florida would decide our national election otherwise.
Thank G-d for the Electoral College. Do we want a President to be elected by the corruption that is New York city, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Los Angeles — cities that have more votes counted than they have voters registered?
One important blessing of the Electoral College is to prevent the country’s leaders being chosen by a few big, overcrowded, filthy, dishonest cities (Yeah, you are right, I may not have expressed my opinion of city-dwellers clearly enough, LOL.)
Remember that map of the election districts in 2000? “Blue” was only in the welfare-dependent cities. The rest of the country was Red — but we came frighteningly close to having those 1% choose a leader for the other 99% of the USA. Allowing electoral votes to be proportionally tied to popular votes will only destroy the nation faster.
Thank G-d for the Electoral College. Do we want a President to be elected by the corruption that is New York city, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Los Angeles — cities that have more votes counted than they have voters registered?
One important blessing of the Electoral College is to prevent the country’s leaders being chosen by a few big, overcrowded, filthy, dishonest cities (Yeah, you are right, I may not have expressed my opinion of city-dwellers clearly enough, LOL.)
Remember that map of the election districts in 2000? “Blue” was only in the welfare-dependent cities. The rest of the country was Red — but we came frighteningly close to having those 1% choose a leader for the other 99% of the USA. Allowing electoral votes to be proportionally tied to popular votes will only destroy the nation faster.
And still do. Mostly.
The top 5 states by population today are:
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
I mean no disrespect to anyone living in those states, but the last thing I want is for elections to be decided solely by those states.
One other thing of note: Over 50% of the population lives in only 10 states.
Not this ignorant sh*t again.
The proposal to apportion Electoral votes by Congressional District looks appealing as it would break the power of the Democratic cities to consistently deliver the entire state’s votes under the current system.
A-GAIN!!????
How many times are we going to discuss this here??
The electopral college evens the playing field and the left hates it. Makes it tougher to cheat on elections!!
Notice how:
(1) throughout the chronology, direct popular election of the executive is defeated,
(2) selection of the electors for each state - given with the understaning that the expectation is that the state is actively chosing the electors who are selected to presumably actually MAKE a choice - with language that the methodology for that selection will be set “by the state legislatures”, and then
(3) the “national popular vote” agenda uses that provision to attempt to say that the “state legislatures” can do away with the essence and purpose of the electoral college by, through mere legislation, ending the responsibility of states from exercising an actual choice of their electors, and demanding, by previous legislative fiat, that the “national popular vote”, not any actual will of their state, will chose their electors for them.
Our NPV troll here on FreeRep often trots out the excuse that the “winner take all” assignment of electors by most states is at the heart of the problem, yet he denies that to the extent that there is any truth to that, a state’s assignment of electoral votes proportionately, instead of winner take all (something I believe a few states do) is a remedy the states can enact, without accepting the “national popular vote” agenda.
As far as the issue of the really big states, due to their very big populations in our time, possibly achieving an electoral vote majority out of some combination of those big states alone, with that victory accounting NOT for a popular vote close to a majority, there is a remedy and “national popular vote” is not it.
The number of states and the population distribution of the states has changed considerably since we allocated two federal senators for each state and set the number of electors from each state, for the electoral college, to the number of their legislative seats in the House and Senate combined.
If necessary, for preventing a tiny portion of very large states from acquiring an electoral college majority on their own, without adding additional federal senators, we could change the number of electors from each state, for the electoral college. as equal to their number of seats in House of Representatives plus three (or whatever is needed over time). By that method a balance might be restored between “most of the states” and “the states with the most”.
Bookmark for later digestion, Thank you.
Why? Here’s why...
Value of an individual vote under the Electoral College relative to a vote using Direct Election:
State | ECV/DEV
Alabama 103%
Alaska 228%
Arizona 102%
Arkansas 116%
California 85%
Colorado 107%
Connecticut 112%
Delaware 199%
D.C. 301%
Florida 88%
Georgia 95%
Hawaii 158%
Idaho 144%
Illinois 91%
Indiana 94%
Iowa 127%
Kansas 116%
Kentucky 104%
Louisiana 105%
Maine 165%
Maryland 97%
Massachusetts 101%
Michigan 93%
Minnesota 106%
Mississippi 110%
Missouri 102%
Montana 159%
Nebraska 151%
Nevada 128%
New Hampshire 166%
New Jersey 95%
New Mexico 132%
New York 90%
North Carolina 97%
North Dakota 236%
Ohio 93%
Oklahoma 107%
Oregon 103%
Pennsylvania 91%
Rhode Island 210%
South Carolina 105%
South Dakota 197%
Tennessee 98%
Texas 84%
Utah 110%
Vermont 250%
Virginia 94%
Washington 93%
West Virginia 144%
Wisconsin 97%
Wyoming 281%
Example: a vote in Wyoming is worth 3.3x that of one in Texas ... reducing Texas’ overwhelming 45-to-1 voter advantage over Wyoming to 14-to-1.
Thank you for the history lesson! Very enlightening.
For those who believe a picture is worth a thousand words I offer these two views of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Election. The USA Today County by County voting map illustrates the founder's wisdom more than mere words can.