Fifth Avenue Forum

The Constitutional convention understood the issues and debated them. All the things you say are brought up in the papers written at the time.

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

You want to dictate to private organizations how they nominate their candidates?

Not saying anyone should tell them, especially not the incompetent federal government, but I'm free to say how they do it is detrimental.

It would take a new ammendment to the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. Does anyone actually see that happening?

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

More than just the primary process, I think you could make the case that party politics, generally, is what has mooted the EC. The whole notion of what we would recognize as campaigning for the presidency didn't really take hold until almost the 20th century.

Patrick Henry wrote at the time that he hopes the EC would lead to a backwoodsman to be President.

As we sit here, conversing across thousands of miles in real time in an age when humans have set for on other celestial bodies, this is not a super compelling argument in support of your position.

A far bigger issue is the primary system that selects the major party candidates.

More than just the primary process, I think you could make the case that party politics, generally, is what has mooted the EC. The whole notion of what we would recognize as campaigning for the presidency didn't really take hold until almost the 20th century.

That and the fact both parties no longer have intellectually disparate wings and regions that they had even 20 years ago.

One of the ways in which they would think bizarre is how we've capped the number of members of the house of representatives at 435. According to their understanding we should have a house of about 1,000 members, which would get things back in order imo.

California's population is expected to be around 3-ish million more in the 2020 census than it was in 2010. Just that change in population is more than the combined total populations of the four or five smallest states, yet CA is possibly going to lose a House seat to one of those states (I think SD) because of that statutory cap at 435. That is stupid.

Patrick Henry wrote at the time that he hopes the EC would lead to a backwoodsman to be President.

As we sit here, conversing across thousands of miles in real time in an age when humans have set foot on other celestial bodies, this is not a super compelling argument in support of your position.

Point is lots of people wrote lots of things at the time.

One wrote that the EC would guarantee Elite rule, another that it would lead to normal people gaining authority in Washington.

One of the ways in which they would think bizarre is how we've capped the number of members of the house of representatives at 435. According to their understanding we should have a house of about 1,000 members, which would get things back in order imo.

California's population is expected to be around 3-ish million more in the 2020 census than it was in 2010. Just that change in population is more than the combined total populations of the four or five smallest states, yet CA is possibly going to lose a House seat to one of those states (I think SD) because of that statutory cap at 435. That is stupid.

Much agreed.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... the-house/

“[T]he office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” -- Also in the papers written at the time as a rationale for the EC. Has worked out swimmingly.

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: 'For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration."

- Federalist No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton).

While we can debate as to whether the electoral college has in fact produced people of "requisite qualifications," the point was to create a situation where a candidate would need to have broad appeal across multiple states—and their different interests and constituencies—in order to win the presidency. I don't see that as any less important for today.

It would take a new ammendment to the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. Does anyone actually see that happening?

No way in heck that happens. It would require multiple states to approve an amendment that would functionally render them meaningless when it comes to Presidential elections.

While we're talking about the framers.
https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madi ... DUno8GPXSg

In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."
Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states.

To the extent you mean 'broad appeal among voters' is sort of political retcon. In the 18th century there was not much ability to get to know a candidate, certainly not like there is today, and they feared a situation where people would only vote for candidates from their home states, and thus skew power towards the population centers. (Which in retrospect is kinda funny, considering it was like half a century before we had a POTUS from somewhere other than Virginia or Massachusetts.) So the EC is meant to act as sort of a buffer between voters and candidates, because people cannot possibly be entrusted with this kind of decision directly. ("The peasants are revolting!"...."They certainly are.") The type of government that was being set up by the Constitution had never really been contemplated on anything like the scale of a country the size of the U.S. and A., even at its founding. But we're 250 years in now, and the country has like 75x the population density it had in 1790. Time for a re-think.

It's almost like the Constitution is a consensus document.

To the extent you mean 'broad appeal among voters' is sort of political retcon. In the 18th century there was not much ability to get to know a candidate, certainly not like there is today, and they feared a situation where people would only vote for candidates from their home states, and thus skew power towards the population centers. (Which in retrospect is kinda funny, considering it was like half a century before we had a POTUS from somewhere other than Virginia or Massachusetts.) So the EC is meant to act as sort of a buffer between voters and candidates, because people cannot possibly be entrusted with this kind of decision directly. ("The peasants are revolting!"...."They certainly are.") The type of government that was being set up by the Constitution had never really been contemplated on anything like the scale of a country the size of the U.S. and A., even at its founding. But we're 250 years in now, and the country has like 75x the population density it had in 1790. Time for a re-think.

Why do people assume that the founding fathers couldn’t contemplate the country growing tremendously? That IMO is a completely ridiculous assumption that shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Why do you assume that's what is being intimated by the observation?

Today in Hunter Biden news...

Thanks for that vital update, Freddy.

Thanks for that vital uodate, Freddy.

Freddy just reports.

Thanks for that vital update, Freddy.

Breaks up the crying about trump every day.

If memory serves, NC always ranks way up there as far as most gerrymandered states in the nation. Is this just a correction to that?

This is just a gerrymandering in the other direction. #electionshaveconsequences

Not sure the full distinction between correcting a gerrymander and re-gerrymandering.

Thanks for that vital update, Freddy.

Breaks up the crying about trump every day.

Guess it doesn't break up your crying about everything else.

The legislative branch has neutered itself and the parties cannot be counted on to nominate competent leaders for president.

George f will is that you?

The Framers also didn’t seem to think through the process enough and gave us Presidents and Vice Presidents from different parties that would completely back stab each other, see: Jefferson, Thomas. So let’s not think them infallible please.