The Electoral College Was Terrible From the Start

Had we maintained strict adherence to the original Constitution, Hillary Clinton would be the Vice President.

I believe you missed the "essentially [sic] argument". It discusses the original premise of the Electoral College, and it shows a number of the times where the intent failed and left us with less than stellar individuals in the Oval Office.

Do you feel those people on the Electoral College should be able to vote however they want regardless of the popular vote in the state they are representing?

MSgt Steve Sweeney no she wouldn't. The Constitution was amended. According to the Constitution, Mike Pence was elected president. Electors should he bound by the popular vote on their states.

1SG Cj Grisham - The Constitution was amended the same way it was amended by the 17th Amendment, which you claimed "fucked up states rights". That being said, I took it you were anti-amendment. My point is that without the 12th amendment, Hillary would be the Vice President.

It would seem you want to have it both ways.... Original Constitution, and those amendments you agree with.

Also - "Electors should he [sic] bound by the popular vote on their states" - This was a main premise of the article. "those concerned with its dangers would do better to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, under which states bind their electors to vote for the popular-vote winner." - Currently, Electors are NOT bound, which was discussed in the article.

Did you even read the article?

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Federalist Papers #62, James Madison, The Senate; and Federalist Papers #63, James Madison, Senate Continued.

We haven't bound electors to the popular vote in the 230 years it has been in existence, and there hasn't been a problem. What is the issue that you want to fix by tinkering with something that ain't broke?

Capt Gregory Prickett - I suppose it depends on what you define as a "problem". If the intent of the Electoral College was for electors to vote their conscience to prevent people from people being fooled or manipulated, it has failed in that regard on a couple of noteworthy occasions. The need to bind electors, I suppose, stems from the premise that those in power derive their authority from the consent of the governed, not just the whims of a certain few designated as electors.

I will take the materials you mentioned under consideration. Thank you. Let me ask you though, who do you feel would be easier to corrupt, a State legislature, or the whole of the American public? Especially given that most State legislatures are entirely controlled by a single party.

From a brief reading of #62, it does not appear Madison had any strong feeling regarding the way Senators were selected saying that the method selected by the convention was "probably the most congenial", but did not give the issue much scrutiny.... did not feel the need to dilate. Did make some points on the links between state governments and federal representatives.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - it's easier to corrupt the entire American public, that's why the Founding Fathers were concerned about the democracy of the mob.

BTW, consent of the governed does not equate to binding electors. Not even close.

Capt Gregory Prickett - It is easier to corrupt a large group of diverse people than it is to corrupt a small group of like minded people... Doesn't make a lot of sense. It would seem that Hamilton himself put the people at the low end of the corruption hierarchy...

"Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?"

"consent of the governed does not equate to binding electors" - Because YOU say so?

MSgt Steve Sweeney - I did read it. As we both may or may not know about how the EC actually works. But anyhow, happy amending!

1SG (Join to see) - Oh, you did read it? If you say so. I know you wouldn't compromise your integrity over such a minor point. A person who did that would certainly compromise their integrity over bigger issues. Agreed?

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Are you questioning my integrity? Because if you are, we are done here.

1SG (Join to see) - Not at all. I said you certainly wouldn't compromise it over something as small as reading an article. I think we both would agree that only a very small and petty person would do such a thing.