[Torus34]

There's a small movement afoot to do away with the Electoral College, that curious, perhaps unique body defined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

The process of amending the Constitution is a lengthy one, and purposely so. A document supported by hundreds of years of case law should not be changed on a whim. A case can be made that, given the political polarization which exists not only in the Congress of the United States but also in the several States of the Union, passage of such an amendment is highly unlikely. Consider, if you will, the proposed amendment for women's equality under the law. It's presently languishing in the hinterlands.

There is, however, a way of diminishing the distorting effect on the popular vote which the Electoral College can exert. A State can elect to distribute Electors based on the proportion of the vote. This can be done on the basis of the vote within the State or the overall national tally. Some presently do. Many others, though, have a 'winner takes all' distribution. It is this which can lead to great disparities between the 'will of the people' and the 'will of the Electors'.

Again, there is the problem presented by political party power. A State which can significantly distort an election through the number of assigned Electors and the distribution of its voters will be loath to change. To do so is to give up power, either real or perceived. It is not something politicians do lightly.

And so it goes.

[ness31]

Consider, if you will, the proposed amendment for women's equality under the law

What constitutional amendments are being sought? *cringes*

[Torus34]

What constitutional amendments are being sought? *cringes*

Sir, I'll assume your question is more than rhetoric. A partial list of them can be found at:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... de-it-yet/

Regards.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Getting rid of the electoral college is tyrannical, it will disenfranchise the rural vote even more than the 17th amendment.

[Torus34]

Getting rid of the electoral college is tyrannical, it will disenfranchise the rural vote even more than the 17th amendment.

Sir, I put to you the following question.

Is democratic government better achieved by counting the vote of each citizen as equal or by weighing the votes of those living in cities and suburban areas versus those living in rural areas on an unequal balance?

Regards.

PS. 'Rural' vs. 'non-rural' is but one of many possible divisions. One could also ask if the votes of the wealthy should carry more weight than those of the non-wealthy. Or, perhaps, the votes of the educated vs. those of the uneducated. Or those who have served in the military vs. those who have not. The list can be extended.

[Suntzu]

This is a republican government. The president is elected by the states, not by the people.

It really doesn't matter because, for all practical purposes, getting rid of the electoral college is impossible.

[annatar1914]

Getting rid of the electoral college is tyrannical, it will disenfranchise the rural vote even more than the 17th amendment.

@Victoribus Spolia

That's the idea that the Elites have, to disenfranchise the rural voters, the poorer and less urbanized and cosmopolitan folks who have at least some remnant of Christian living about them and who stand in the way of utter social Godlessness and depravity.

Having read the ''Anti-Federalist Papers'', much of this was actually forseen by some of America's Founding Fathers, that in itself the US Constitution is not enough of a bulwark against these forces, and in fact a strong help to them.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Is democratic government better achieved by counting the vote of each citizen as equal or by weighing the votes of those living in cities and suburban areas versus those living in rural areas on an unequal balance?

The United States is not a democratic government, nor was it conceived as such; hence, what is more democratic is not necessarily more constitutional, American, consensual, or rational.

This is a republican government. The president is elected by the states, not by the people.

It really doesn't matter because, for all practical purposes, getting rid of the electoral college is impossible.

Correct, for the reasons I mentioned.

That's the idea that the Elites have, to disenfranchise the rural voters, the poorer and less urbanized and cosmopolitan folks who have at least some remnant of Christian living about them and who stand in the way of utter social Godlessness and depravity.

True indeed.

Having read the ''Anti-Federalist Papers'', much of this was actually forseen by some of America's Founding Fathers, that in itself the US Constitution is not enough of a bulwark against these forces, and in fact a strong help to them.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

- Lysander Spooner; No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

[annatar1914]

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

- Lysander Spooner; No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

@Victoribus Spolia ;

This is something of a confession of sorts; in my early days of political formation, I was politically almost Anarchist, having read a fair amount of Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, Louis Bastiat, Patrick Henry, and admittedly, Pierre Proudhon and Henry George. While that was the case, I was much more very enamored of Catholic legitimist reactionary thought at the time also because of my bedrock social conservatism I gradually found myself in the Statist camp with Joseph de Maistre and Juan Donoso Y Cortes. Desire to punish Malefactors, destroy the wicked, overcame my desire for human Liberty.

I did not think that Liberty is itself a conserving mechanism at the time, and that there was a reason Marx and his followers lump all Anarchists in the Reactionary camp, even Bakunin and his Atheistical and Socialist Acolytes.

To hear Lysander Spooner's name again brings back my memories of when I was an idealist, not the mirror image on the Right of the Nihilists on the Left who want to burn down the Cosmos. After all, isn't that the political lesson of Tolkien's stories, that to take up the 'Ring of Power' is to become a type of 'Sauron' ourselves.

And so my friend, I have to even leave the US Constitution behind, as the product of the already broken modern age.

[Torus34]

This is a republican government. The president is elected by the states, not by the people.

Sir, that is a reasonable assertion. It leads to another area of question, though. First, remember that when the Constitution was written, the country was a far different thing. To all intents and purposes, there were no 'rural' or 'urban' States. If each State was to have a voice in selecting the President, one would expect that one Elector from each State would suffice. Yet, we have a complex structure which, at this point in time, gives some States far more votes than others. Compare Alaska and California.

Regards.

[BigSteve]

The idiot left didn't have a problem with the Electoral College until it cost Hillary the election. Then, all of a sudden, it was the single worst thing about American politics...

[Torus34]

The idiot left didn't have a problem with the Electoral College until it cost Hillary the election. Then, all of a sudden, it was the single worst thing about American politics...

Sir, thank you for taking time to respond. I'm not sure, however, that your comment significantly advances the understanding of the Electoral College, its genesis and the ways in which it distorts the popular vote.

Regards.

[Suntzu]

Sir, that is a reasonable assertion. It leads to another area of question, though. First, remember that when the Constitution was written, the country was a far different thing. To all intents and purposes, there were no 'rural' or 'urban' States. If each State was to have a voice in selecting the President, one would expect that one Elector from each State would suffice. Yet, we have a complex structure which, at this point in time, gives some States far more votes than others. Compare Alaska and California.

Regards.

There were rural and urban states just as there are now. There were states with vastly different populations just as there are now. Compare the population or Rhode Island and Pennsylvania in 1790.

[BigSteve]

Sir, thank you for taking time to respond. I'm not sure, however, that your comment significantly advances the understanding of the Electoral College, its genesis and the ways in which it distorts the popular vote.

Regards.

Oh, super.

I wasn't trying to do that. I was just pointing out that the idiot left didn't start whining about the electoral college until their would-be queen got bested...

[Torus34]

There were rural and urban states just as there are now. There were states with vastly different populations just as there are now. Compare the population or Rhode Island and Pennsylvania in 1790.

Yup! And that's why the mix of 2 votes for each State [Republic] and a vote for each member of the House of Representatives ['pure' Democracy] compromise was enacted.

This is a system which will generally result in 'one person, one vote' equality as long as 'winner takes all' is confined to the vote of the EC. When it becomes the policy of the States, as opposed to proportional assignment of electors based on the popular vote, we arrive at the present situation in which a rural vote can have over three times the impact of a city vote.

The Constitution creators were aware of the dangers inherent in a system of political parties.* The parties, when empowered, can chip away at the checks and balances designed to protect the citizens in order to enhance their own power. Having a State's electors assigned 'winner takes all' is an example. Once enacted by one State, the spread of the practice was almost inevitable. The distortion this introduced grew until we reach today's position in which only two States assign electors proportionately. Given the party polarity extant, a significant change does not seem possible.

It's my guess, and only a guess, that the designers of the EC did not fully understand the quirks of the system. The Constitution framers did manage a republic/popular democracy compromise in having the Senators elected by the State legislatures and the Representatives elected by the people. The 17th Amendment, though, eliminated that particular nod to the States.

Regards.

* Ref: https://www.history.com/news/founding-f ... es-opinion

[Doug64]

This is a republican government. The president is elected by the states, not by the people.

Better said I think, the president is elected by the citizens of the several states rather than by the citizens of the United States. They simply happen to be the same people wearing different hats.

There were rural and urban states just as there are now. There were states with vastly different populations just as there are now. Compare the population or Rhode Island and Pennsylvania in 1790.

IIRC, the first census to register more people living in urban areas rather than rural was 1920, the real division at the time of the Constitution's creation was between small states and large ones. The Electoral College's make-up of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives in Congress was intended to recognize the principle of majority rule (big giving big states more heft) while giving a nod to the "minority" states (with a few more electors). It never did really work that way, it turns out that small states share interests with big states in various combinations. I would say that the equal representation in the Senate has had much more of an impact.