CDZ The Troubling Reason The Electoral College Exists

[skews13]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...yoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

 

[yiostheoy]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTlLP35-PSAhUMbxQKHearD0wQFggpMAI&url=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNEKjC35HnCAryoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

This time it saved us from the slaves in California and New York State however.

Good idea overall.

 

[Ringel05]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTlLP35-PSAhUMbxQKHearD0wQFggpMAI&url=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNEKjC35HnCAryoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

This is not the first time this "version" has been presented. Now if only the article had been written by a historian who's only agenda is to address history.

Akhil Reed Amar does a wonderful job of revisionist cherry picking but is unable to reconcile the fact that the most vocal opposition to national popular vote came from those states that had already abolished slavery. He also omits all of Madison's other, most professed reasons not to mention the fact the 1800 election itself completely debunks Amar's historical revision.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The electoral system exists because many Americans believe that the country should not be ruled solely by a few densely packed cities. What does NYC know about farming or ranching?
Slavery may have had something to do with how the electoral system came to be (I suspect logistics was a bigger factor) but it has been the Constitutionally mandated way to elect presidents for all the decades since. If we didn't want it to remain we could have changed it via amendment long since. And that's not going to happen in the near future either.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTlLP35-PSAhUMbxQKHearD0wQFggpMAI&url=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNEKjC35HnCAryoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

The Troubling Reason The Electoral College Exists.....Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election: slavery.

It was taught to me and to my kids.

As go education in the U.S. I think a lot more is taught than most people actually learn and remember, and I think that the extant history you've noted falls into that category.

 

[Picaro]

There was no anti-slavery movement in the North or anywhere else in North America worth mentioning, Quakers in Pennsylvania being the only notable demographic so yes, the OP is nonsense. The northern states all hated and resented Virginia's size, political power, and wealth; it's why the New England states threatened to secede when Jefferson won election to the Presidency.

 

[jwoodie]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTlLP35-PSAhUMbxQKHearD0wQFggpMAI&url=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNEKjC35HnCAryoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

Great example of ass-backwards "reasoning:" The Southern States were merely interested in maintaining a balance of federal representation between their agricultural economies and the more industrial economies of the Northern States. The issue of slavery was deliberately avoided at the Constitutional Convention.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTlLP35-PSAhUMbxQKHearD0wQFggpMAI&url=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNEKjC35HnCAryoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

Slavery Saved Them From Savagery

Just like women and children, the slaves were dependents. It was the power-hungry North that wanted them to count for less in determining the number of Representatives allotted to each state.

 

[jwoodie]

Furthermore, the Constitution apportions Congressional representation on the number of persons living within a particular state. In that sense, the Southern States were underrepresented by only counting 3/5 of the number of slaves living within those states.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The electoral college does today what it's always done: increase the voting power of lowly populated regions of the country.

• In the 18th century, it was used as a way to allow Southern states to count slaves as part of the population, and thus those states would receive electors and House of Representative (HoR) seats in proportion to the slave + white citizen headcounts, while at the same time not allowing slaves to vote. (Mind you, I probably wouldn't have wanted slaves to vote either...Not because they were slaves or non-white, but rather because they were poorly educated, thus not well informed and comprehending of the important legal, economic, science, etc. matters of the day.)
• Between Reconstruction and some years around or shortly after 965, Southern whites still didn't want blacks to vote, but they wanted the federal electors and HoR seats accruing from them....As if Southern U.S. Representatives gave a damn about what their black "constituents" wanted or thought....("I think that what is wrong in Mississippi is not that not enough Negroes are voting but that too many white people are." -- William F. Buckley, Jr., 1965)
• These days, the electoral college ensures that when, in presidential elections, rural Americans disagree with urban Americans, urbanites need to obtain considerably more popular votes in order to win the election, but that only happens in elections where the split in the popular vote is pretty close. I put it that way because these days the vast majority of the U.S. population lives in urban/suburban areas.

The simple fact is that the U.S. has never fully embraced the spirit and letter notion of "one man, one vote." If it did, there'd be no electoral college. At the moment, it's clear to Republicans that the electoral college is what allows them to win presidential elections, so they want to keep it. At some point in the future, it'll be the opposite. The thing I don't like about the electoral college is that it, along with its state-level analogue, gerrymandering, facilitates "block" or "identity" politicking.

 

[jwoodie]

The simple fact is that the U.S. has never fully embraced the spirit and letter notion of "one man, one vote." If it did, there'd be no electoral college.

The simple fact is that the Constitution never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The simple fact is that the U.S. has never fully embraced the spirit and letter notion of "one man, one vote." If it did, there'd be no electoral college.

The simple fact is that the Constitution never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote.

John Nash's Theory of Negotiations

A popular vote would have decided in favor of disproportional representation and electoral votes for the less-populated states, even though that superficially seems against the PV's self-interest. First, people wanted to be able to move out to the less-crowded states. Second, they wanted the country to expand and would offer special privileges to get the other states to join the union.

 

[PredFan]

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTlLP35-PSAhUMbxQKHearD0wQFggpMAI&url=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/&usg=AFQjCNEKjC35HnCAryoSP0rv7c2karjE3g&sig2=kwDYrq7X8a4-b7OIlg3-Bw

Thats a perfect example of why we need the EC. Though slavery is gone, we need to avoid big states like California dictating to everyone else. No matter it's origins, it's an excellent system.

 

[Picaro]

Great example of ass-backwards "reasoning:" The Southern States were merely interested in maintaining a balance of federal representation between their agricultural economies and the more industrial economies of the Northern States. The issue of slavery was deliberately avoided at the Constitutional Convention.

And as per Madison they shot down a proposal to make secession illegal and opposed using Federal military force against states to remain in the Union. Madison stated that using force violated the entire premise of the Constitutional Convention and a union of free states.

Anybody who thinks this is news can read it for themselves.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 1 - Online Library of Liberty

Also see the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1797-1798, written by Jefferson and Madison.