Posted on 08/31/2012 7:56:54 PM PDT by Kolath
Al here is a hint why it is there.
It is in the Constitution. Kind of a neat document, sorry you have not read it.
Your welcome “Buff”
My claim might be partial nonsense, but it is certainly not total nonsense.
The EC was intended to be an assembly of eminent men, selected by each State, rather than by the people of the State. These men would in a very real sense decide on who the candidates were and then elect the President and Vice-President. Technically that is what it still is, as the electors are not legally bound to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged. There is not a trace in the Constitution of the notion of national presidential elections, or even that the people as a whole would know who the candidates were prior to the meeting of the EC.
Since the notion of political parties is absent from the Constitition, and in such absense there is no particular reason to expect the EC to consistently achieve a majority for one man, there are scholars who claim the actual original intent was for the EC to nominate three candidates, with the election among them normally defaulting to the House.
Since 1796 the EC has not in a genuine sense elected anybody. It has in practice, with exception of one or two states, become a way of divvying up the popular vote by State and giving all the State’s votes to a single candidate.
You can argue about whether this is a good or bad thing. But you cannot logically argue it is what the Founders intended.
In the original Constitution only the House of Representative was elected by popular vote, which is why it was called that. All other elections were indirect.
I can think of two republicans off the top of my head who are calling for the same thing.
England was in practice never an absolute monarchy. Power was originally split between king and nobility in practice. In theory the King was close to absolute, but he couldn’t push too far without causing a revolt, so he had 2nd Amendment type limitation on his power.
As King John found out. Magna Carta started a 400 year struggle between absolutism and constitutionalism. For much of this period the King’s effective power increased, reaching a high point probably under the Tudors, with Henry VIII very nearly absolute.
England did not in theory become a true constitutional monarch till 1688, when the monarch’s power was strictly limited by the Glorious Revolution.
What ever will get in thier way they want it removed. Will the democratic convention require all attendies to show a photo ID? Like the racist ID’s you need to vote?
There's a lot to be said in favor of making it necessary for a president to have to get wide support across the country, rather than focusing on a few urban areas.
So was I wrong in anything I said?
Not disagreeing with you, just expanding on it a bit.
The English Civil War was the major clash between absolute and constitutional monarchy. It could easily have gone the other way and the last non-absolutist monarchy in Europe have gone down.
We look back on this war and see the Parliamentary forces as the wave of the future. But that wasn’t the way it was seen at the time. The conventional wisdom was that absolutism was modern and progressive, and representation and limited governments were holdovers from the medieval past.
For my benefit or for the benefit of someone else?
General interest. Not trying to say you don’t know what you are talking about. No offense intended.
re: “If Algore wants to get rid of it, it must be a credit to our electorial system.”
You got that right.
Great analogy. Thanks.
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.