Posted on Nov 17, 2016
Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the…
2.77K
13
7
3
3
0
Don't abolish the Electoral College, Restore it
A lot of talk lately here on RP and elsewhere talking about the Electoral College. Obviously anytime you have an election and the person who got the most votes doesn't win you would expect such discussions (and Trump supporters don't pretend you wouldn't be hearing this from your side if Trump won the popular vote but lost in the EC).
Critics of the EC say that the EC is dated, from a time before mass media where voters would know very little about a candidate before they voted. That's true but that's just one reason why the EC was created.
Defenders of the EC, or more specifically, defenders of our current election system say that the EC was implemented to give the smaller states a louder voice and without it the large cities would run roughshod over the rest of the country. Here again there is definitely truth to this but it ignores important issues.
I've seen people here say things along the lines of "this years election is a perfect example of why the Electoral College is needed" and suggest or state that the system we have now is how the founding fathers intended things to be. This doesn't match with my recollection of high school government and U.S. History but that was a few years ago ;) so I did some research.
As it turns out, two of the main architects of the EC were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and neither of them supported the "winner take all" system that 48 states use to select Electors (members of the Electoral College). Hamilton even went so far as to propose a constitutional amendment that would require states to select Electors based on congressional districts in each state. Here is a quote from that:
"That Congress shall from time to time divide each State into Districts equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives from such state in the Congress of the United States, and shall direct the mode of choosing an Elector of President and Vice President in each of the said Districts, who shall be chosen by Citizens who have the qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and that the districts shall be formed, as nearly as may be, with an equal proportion of population in each"
As for Madison, he had this to write in a letter to a journalist:
"I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed & adopted"
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023
If we did what Hamilton and Madison wanted (and if Madison is to be believed, was a common sentiment among the founding fathers) we could preserve/restore the Electoral College to it's original intent. Giving the smaller population states a (somewhat) larger say in the election of the President and giving the overall winner of each state a (slight) advantage when it comes to the EC.
Of course like abolishing the EC, this would require a constitutional amendment. I suspect that this "Hamilton Amendment" would be somewhat more viable from a political perspective but I don't think that it would be as popular as moving to a direct election. And of course without a whole lot more popular demand neither has more than a snowballs chance in hell of happening.
A lot of talk lately here on RP and elsewhere talking about the Electoral College. Obviously anytime you have an election and the person who got the most votes doesn't win you would expect such discussions (and Trump supporters don't pretend you wouldn't be hearing this from your side if Trump won the popular vote but lost in the EC).
Critics of the EC say that the EC is dated, from a time before mass media where voters would know very little about a candidate before they voted. That's true but that's just one reason why the EC was created.
Defenders of the EC, or more specifically, defenders of our current election system say that the EC was implemented to give the smaller states a louder voice and without it the large cities would run roughshod over the rest of the country. Here again there is definitely truth to this but it ignores important issues.
I've seen people here say things along the lines of "this years election is a perfect example of why the Electoral College is needed" and suggest or state that the system we have now is how the founding fathers intended things to be. This doesn't match with my recollection of high school government and U.S. History but that was a few years ago ;) so I did some research.
As it turns out, two of the main architects of the EC were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and neither of them supported the "winner take all" system that 48 states use to select Electors (members of the Electoral College). Hamilton even went so far as to propose a constitutional amendment that would require states to select Electors based on congressional districts in each state. Here is a quote from that:
"That Congress shall from time to time divide each State into Districts equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives from such state in the Congress of the United States, and shall direct the mode of choosing an Elector of President and Vice President in each of the said Districts, who shall be chosen by Citizens who have the qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and that the districts shall be formed, as nearly as may be, with an equal proportion of population in each"
As for Madison, he had this to write in a letter to a journalist:
"I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed & adopted"
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023
If we did what Hamilton and Madison wanted (and if Madison is to be believed, was a common sentiment among the founding fathers) we could preserve/restore the Electoral College to it's original intent. Giving the smaller population states a (somewhat) larger say in the election of the President and giving the overall winner of each state a (slight) advantage when it comes to the EC.
Of course like abolishing the EC, this would require a constitutional amendment. I suspect that this "Hamilton Amendment" would be somewhat more viable from a political perspective but I don't think that it would be as popular as moving to a direct election. And of course without a whole lot more popular demand neither has more than a snowballs chance in hell of happening.
Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the…
Posted from founders.archives.gov
Election 2016
Elections
Constitution
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
5
5
0
Decisions made when emotions are high typical do not yield positive results
(5)
(0)
1
1
0
I voted third party and highly believe in the importance of the electoral college.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
PO2 Robert Aitchison I am beating this dead horse into hamburger! I would not be opposed to abolishing the Electoral College, if it contained the caveat that we would also dissolve political parties. One citizen one vote is fine, if that one vote is something more than us or them. Otherwise I would love to see us go to a percentage system, district system, or something else which would divide the Electoral Votes. What I personally would prefer if we keep the electoral college would be electoral votes in five percents. So take a third party candidate who gets statewide 6 percent of the vote, that candidate would get one electoral vote. It would at least then bring attention to the fact that there are other choices than D or R that should be evaluated. My biggest problem with our current system is that we are guided to believe that there are only two choices. When I say I am voting for a third party, I am told things like "That is stupid" and "Why are you wasting your vote?" I look at it as being infinitely more stupid to vote for a candidate that I do not support because they were selected by a political party. As for wasting your vote, guess what ALL the votes cast for Hillary Clinton were wasted votes. A wasted vote is any vote that is cast for a non winning candidate, and any vote cast for a winning candidate above the number of votes needed to secure the election victory. So I don't feel so bad voting my conscience on a candidate who lost.
From Glossary for voting: 014 Effective votes are just enough to elect a candidate. Votes for losers do not count, nor do surplus votes that give a winner more than enough. It might make sense to exclude also the votes that elect reps for the opposition party(s), because under old voting rules they get no power to affect laws or budgets. Antonym wasted votes. See quota.
015 Surplus votes give a winner more than enough votes to win. aka excess votes.
016 Threshold of victory, is the number of votes a voting rule requires a candidate to win. aka the quota, the finish line.
018 Wasted votes are votes for a losing candidate and surplus votes which give a winner more than enough to win. Any vote that has no effect is a wasted vote. Perhaps this should include votes for reps who have no power. Synonym dead votes. Antonym effective votes.
http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_words.htm#wasted
From Glossary for voting: 014 Effective votes are just enough to elect a candidate. Votes for losers do not count, nor do surplus votes that give a winner more than enough. It might make sense to exclude also the votes that elect reps for the opposition party(s), because under old voting rules they get no power to affect laws or budgets. Antonym wasted votes. See quota.
015 Surplus votes give a winner more than enough votes to win. aka excess votes.
016 Threshold of victory, is the number of votes a voting rule requires a candidate to win. aka the quota, the finish line.
018 Wasted votes are votes for a losing candidate and surplus votes which give a winner more than enough to win. Any vote that has no effect is a wasted vote. Perhaps this should include votes for reps who have no power. Synonym dead votes. Antonym effective votes.
http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/z_words.htm#wasted
Glossary on social choice.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Aitchison
Under a district based system you would dramatically increase the probability that third parties could pick up at least some Electors, and use that to grow their own voice to the point where they could have a real influence on the government. The current (broken) system locks us into the two corrupt parties and people voting "the lesser of two evils"
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google