SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,680
- 280
- Banned
- #1
There is alot of nonsense that gets said about the EC, including the crap making its rounds on this board at the moment. In general these things are frequently repeated because people either are romanticizing the past without actually knowing what they're talking about, or perhaps they've heard certain arguments so many times from other people they've assumed it's true, or in some cases it's just because some people are fucking idiots who need to go eat some cyanide before they make the regrettable decision to procreate.
Be warned that if you act like a fucking idiot in this thread then I will call you a fucking idiot. Let's have a nice, mature, intelligent, and civil conversation, shall we?
Let's start by dispensing of the idea that the Framers had some kind of major aversion to democracy and that that is the reason why they created the EC. This belief is found absolutely nowhere, other than in the imaginations of people who are reciting it. At best, there are tangential facts that are not inconsistent with this imagined hypothesis, but still do not come close to giving a supporting basis from which to infer such a hypothesis as anything short of fantasy. To this end, we must recognize that it did not take very long for nearly all states to legislatively send the choosing of electors to the people to decide by democratic vote. The House of Representatives was constitutionally prescribed to be selected democratically, the legislatures and many other officers of the states were chosen democratically, and state legislatures operated democratically. Democracy was fully ingrained in the Framers so much so that was fully vested in their understanding of how a republic would operate. For the Framers, the presumption of democratic behavior within the newly designed Congress is so fundamental they don't even bother to require it within the constitution's description of that body. The constitution merely prescribes special conditions for minimum thresholds upon special circumstances, demonstrating that democratic voting within these houses of Congress is so expected it need not even be mentioned otherwise.
The Framers had been life long monarchists up until independence. They knew and understood a world of feudal inspired imperialism. And their perception of the United States was much closer to a collection of nation-states than the singular nation-state we see it as today. In its original form, the United States of the 1780s was a confederacy, which bore a closer resemblance to the modern EU than the modern US. The Framers understood the United States to be a collection of independently sovereign states. Analogously, having lived their entire lives understanding the world in terms of imperial monarchy, the Framers saw the United States as a non-monarchial equivalent of an American empire, from an organizational point of view.
In creating a new federal government the Framers attempted to match their new government with the powers and organizational schematics which were familiar and known to them. The starting point of their attempts was Madison's Virginia Plan. A President was offered to be head of state, in lieu of a king. A congress was offered to legislate, in lieu of defined nobility. And just as in elective monarchies of the past, and consistent with centuries of practice which demanded that a king cannot remain king without the support and consent of the nobles, the President was to be elected by the Congress.
However, some among the Framers noted that the Presidency would be under de facto control of Congress, eroding checks and balances. James Madison's proposed solution was direct democratic election by the people, even despite having authored the Virginia Plan's election-by-Congress model. Even though Congressional election of the President was his idea, upon examination of that plan's faults, he instantly recognized direct democratic selection by the people as the superior approach. But this is where slavery came into the picture. Slave states had far fewer eligible voters, and direct democratic election by the people was a deal breaker. They would not tolerate it because they could not maintain influence in the choosing of the President due to the substantial portion of their populations composed by non-voting slaves.
The compromise that was ultimately struck was the creation of the electoral college. This preserved the influence of southern slave states in selecting the President, despite those states being able to suppress voting rights for the majority of their citizens. The Electoral College, is in essence, another expression of the 3/5s rule. It was a compromise to convince slave states to consent to the constitution, while allowing them leeway to suppress the rights of their citizens.
So next time someone wants to argue that the purpose of the EC was to "prevent high population areas from being the only ones who choose the President" understand that what you're really arguing is that states should be able to restrict individual citizens from voting, without losing influence in the vote. You are arguing for the preservation of the last remaining slavery supporting mechanism within our government. You are arguing for state governments to be able to be paramount to the people they are supposed to serve. And you sound like a fucking idiot while doing it.
Be warned that if you act like a fucking idiot in this thread then I will call you a fucking idiot. Let's have a nice, mature, intelligent, and civil conversation, shall we?
Let's start by dispensing of the idea that the Framers had some kind of major aversion to democracy and that that is the reason why they created the EC. This belief is found absolutely nowhere, other than in the imaginations of people who are reciting it. At best, there are tangential facts that are not inconsistent with this imagined hypothesis, but still do not come close to giving a supporting basis from which to infer such a hypothesis as anything short of fantasy. To this end, we must recognize that it did not take very long for nearly all states to legislatively send the choosing of electors to the people to decide by democratic vote. The House of Representatives was constitutionally prescribed to be selected democratically, the legislatures and many other officers of the states were chosen democratically, and state legislatures operated democratically. Democracy was fully ingrained in the Framers so much so that was fully vested in their understanding of how a republic would operate. For the Framers, the presumption of democratic behavior within the newly designed Congress is so fundamental they don't even bother to require it within the constitution's description of that body. The constitution merely prescribes special conditions for minimum thresholds upon special circumstances, demonstrating that democratic voting within these houses of Congress is so expected it need not even be mentioned otherwise.
The Framers had been life long monarchists up until independence. They knew and understood a world of feudal inspired imperialism. And their perception of the United States was much closer to a collection of nation-states than the singular nation-state we see it as today. In its original form, the United States of the 1780s was a confederacy, which bore a closer resemblance to the modern EU than the modern US. The Framers understood the United States to be a collection of independently sovereign states. Analogously, having lived their entire lives understanding the world in terms of imperial monarchy, the Framers saw the United States as a non-monarchial equivalent of an American empire, from an organizational point of view.
In creating a new federal government the Framers attempted to match their new government with the powers and organizational schematics which were familiar and known to them. The starting point of their attempts was Madison's Virginia Plan. A President was offered to be head of state, in lieu of a king. A congress was offered to legislate, in lieu of defined nobility. And just as in elective monarchies of the past, and consistent with centuries of practice which demanded that a king cannot remain king without the support and consent of the nobles, the President was to be elected by the Congress.
However, some among the Framers noted that the Presidency would be under de facto control of Congress, eroding checks and balances. James Madison's proposed solution was direct democratic election by the people, even despite having authored the Virginia Plan's election-by-Congress model. Even though Congressional election of the President was his idea, upon examination of that plan's faults, he instantly recognized direct democratic selection by the people as the superior approach. But this is where slavery came into the picture. Slave states had far fewer eligible voters, and direct democratic election by the people was a deal breaker. They would not tolerate it because they could not maintain influence in the choosing of the President due to the substantial portion of their populations composed by non-voting slaves.
The compromise that was ultimately struck was the creation of the electoral college. This preserved the influence of southern slave states in selecting the President, despite those states being able to suppress voting rights for the majority of their citizens. The Electoral College, is in essence, another expression of the 3/5s rule. It was a compromise to convince slave states to consent to the constitution, while allowing them leeway to suppress the rights of their citizens.
So next time someone wants to argue that the purpose of the EC was to "prevent high population areas from being the only ones who choose the President" understand that what you're really arguing is that states should be able to restrict individual citizens from voting, without losing influence in the vote. You are arguing for the preservation of the last remaining slavery supporting mechanism within our government. You are arguing for state governments to be able to be paramount to the people they are supposed to serve. And you sound like a fucking idiot while doing it.