How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-02-2019, 09:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You said it doesn't seem like an either/or, and then made it an either/or.

As for why not, because the POTUS isn't in charge of the states, it's in charge of a federal bureaucracy, a central government. Representation of the states occurs in the legislature.

LOL.....parse language because you can't make an intelligent rebuttal.

Maybe re-read the Constitution before you make that argument.  You're another person who rejects the EC because you don't seem to understand why or how the EC works.

Beside the point, only an idiot thinks this issue had anything other than to do with votes, on both sides.

[Belsnickel]

(04-06-2019, 03:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL.....parse language because you can't make an intelligent rebuttal.

The point wasn't an intelligent one. You contradicted yourself, which is what I was pointing out. Also, you're either/or scenario was illogical.

(04-06-2019, 03:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Maybe re-read the Constitution before you make that argument.  You're another person who rejects the EC because you don't seem to understand why or how the EC works.

I am basing my statements off of the Constitution. The president does not oversee the governors, the position is not the leader of the states. The president is the executive in charge of the federal bureaucracy. That's what the Constitution says. As for how and why the EC exists and works, we have hashed that out throughout this thread. You're choosing to ignore that is noted and your dismissal of any actual evidence is discouraging.

(04-06-2019, 03:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Beside the point, only an idiot thinks this issue had anything other than to do with votes, on both sides.

And here we see you devolve into personal insults. My guess is that you actually lack a firm foundation in your understanding of the writings of the founders, democratic theory, and how our government functions. You're not alone in that. I only suggest that instead of being blindly dismissive of the people who have studied this and done research on the topic, that you ask questions. Closing off your mind to knowledge is never a good thing.

[BmorePat87]

(04-06-2019, 03:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL.....parse language because you can't make an intelligent rebuttal.

Maybe re-read the Constitution before you make that argument.  You're another person who rejects the EC because you don't seem to understand why or how the EC works.

Beside the point, only an idiot thinks this issue had anything other than to do with votes, on both sides.

Your contribution can be summarized as "I think states should matter more than the federal government" and you've backed it up with a flawed argument that you don't want the majority the dictate what everyone does, so you're supporting the minority dictating what everyone does...?

You threw in some personal insults for good measure and the "You need to re-read the constitution" line which is conservative for "I do not know what the hell I am talking about". 

[BmorePat87]

It seems like as soon as you quote the framers on why they created the EC or mention how the EC actually functioned when written, people supporting it stop responding to you.

[GMDino]

(04-08-2019, 09:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It seems like as soon as you quote the framers on why they created the EC or mention how the EC actually functioned when written, people supporting it stop responding to you.

Along the lines of something I heard last night:  You can have your own opinion...you can't have your own facts.

There are a handful of posters that will cite actual stories/studies/etc to support their opinion/positions and there are a handful that simply post what they think or know and never have anything behind it except they think and know it.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2019, 09:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It seems like as soon as you quote the framers on why they created the EC or mention how the EC actually functioned when written, people supporting it stop responding to you.

(04-08-2019, 09:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Along the lines of something I heard last night:  You can have your own opinion...you can't have your own facts.

There are a handful of posters that will cite actual stories/studies/etc to support their opinion/positions and there are a handful that simply post what they think or know and never have anything behind it except they think and know it.

To be fair, there are a couple that have continued to debate in the face of such things. I may disagree with them, but they make good arguments. I can understand reading these things and then saying "I still see value in the EC because of X, Y, and Z." It's the people that just ignore the evidence that are not helpful to the conversation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-08-2019, 09:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It seems like as soon as you quote the framers on why they created the EC or mention how the EC actually functioned when written, people supporting it stop responding to you.

I can only speak for myself in that I got tired of making the same points to multiple people.  My argument, both pre and post your assertion is in this thread for all to see.  You either agree with it or not.  I don't really have anything more to add and I haven't seen any new points that need to be addressed.

[BmorePat87]

(04-08-2019, 10:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can only speak for myself in that I got tired of making the same points to multiple people.  My argument, both pre and post your assertion is in this thread for all to see.  You either agree with it or not.  I don't really have anything more to add and I haven't seen any new points that need to be addressed.

In our back and forth, you rooted your argument in the practical contemporary application, not in some faux historical context. I am not lumping you into that group. 

 A lot of people made anachronistic arguments, trying to draw authoritative support from sources that never argued their point of view. One person went so far as to tell me that the delegate who argued for a straight popular vote actually stated that the EC should give rural areas the same voice as highly populated areas (the delegate in question never said that). 

[Dill]

(04-04-2019, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At the time, there was a split in the Convention over the election of president. Some wanted a national popular vote, some were skeptical of the abilities of the average citizen to make an informed vote and so it should be left to Congress. The Electoral College was a compromise. It wasn't ever about the states making the choice or allowing smaller states to have a say or anything like that. Federalist No. 68, Hamilton's defense of the system, doesn't talk about that. It was because they didn't trust the American people to make a good choice due to lack of information.

I believe this is incorrect.  In fact, I would say the EC debate was driven by the tension between large (population-wise) and small states every step of the way.

Here I follow the overview of the debate provided in Chapter 2 of The Electoral College Primer 2000, a book with no polemical intent, which schematically outlines the process. The "split" in Congress was initially between 1) those who wanted a popular election of the president and 2) those who wanted Congress to elect him--which would favor smaller states.  The latter option bothered those who felt congressional election compromised the independence of the executive. Those who disliked the former (only three?) were worried that "the masses" might not choose well, but also that it gave more power to the larger states.  Concerned about the debate over proportional representation which had earlier divided Congress, the Committee of Eleven tasked with working out a compromise followed the model of the Connecticut Compromise which had saved the Republic by creating two houses of Congress, one apportioning equal power to states, the other proportional representation to the electorate. The Committee of Eleven then created a two-stage system involving electors and then, in case of a tie, a contingency plan where by the election would be thrown to the House, and the representatives of each state would collectively have 1 vote for their state--13 equally weighted votes in all.

The authors conclude:

The key to acceptance of this two-­stage plan for presidential selection lay in the different character of electoral college and House contingent voting. The electoral college, reflecting in a rough way the population of states, would favor the large states at the cost of the small states—or more accurately, populations rather than equally­weighted states. When the contingent House procedure went into effect—as it most often would—the voting would be one vote per state delegation, thus representing equally weighed individual states regardless of population. This mechanism was a compromise between the principle of population and that of equal state interest. As James Madison later described the electoral college, it was "the result of compromise between the larger and smaller states, giving to the latter the advantage of selecting a President from the candidates, in consideration of the former in selecting the candidates from the people" (Langley and Peirce 22).

Anyway, I would just like to get that point out there. I am neither a Constitutional lawyer nor a Congressional historian, so I cannot tell with certainly what the current legal/historical consensus really is about this. But I have recently read several journal and newspaper articles disputing claims that the EC was about protecting slavery (as opposed to preserving the Republic), such as Gregg L. Gary's"No! The Electoral College Was Not Created to Protect Slavery." 

I am not here trying to establish Framer intent as a criterion of acceptability, but setting forth the record of the debate to re-affirm that, from the get go, the EC was part of the needed compromise between large and small states over proportional representation needed to make the nation work. (In any case, Framer intent was soon out the window, as the logic of the system itself soon required states to vote in blocks to preserve their power.) Whatever the Framers "intended," and whatever changes followed, the EC remains structurally integral to the balance between larger and smaller states, struck to keep the union together.

These accounts jive well with what I would call the logic of the "Madisonian system" which, as discussed in Federalist No. 51, sees a DOUBLE SECURITY in a Republic compounded of TWO DISTINCT GOVERNMENTS which serve as a check on one another.  In the arguments against the EC so far proffered on this thread, I have seen little recognition of the importance of state governments to this security. The problem inherent in ignoring states might become more apparent if the EC were abolished and attempts began to jerry-rig a compensating system. Don't see how that could happen without the Federal gov. usurping a range of rights formerly accorded states (e.g., defining who is eligible to vote).


                                                                        Works Cited
Gary, Gregg L. " [/url]No! The Electoral College Was Not Created to Protect Slavery." The Epoch Times, Nov 15, 2018, Issue 318, p.A17 

Longley, Lawrence D., and Neal R. Peirce. The Electoral College Primer 2000. (1999)
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzUyODk3X19BTg2?sid=afda7347-10df-486b-b216-1c9fe70f58a1@sessionmgr102&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1

[Dill]

(04-02-2019, 09:45 PM)Benton Wrote: Why is the state more important than the people in it?

Is Montana (a large chunk of dirt) > than Montananans (the people who live there, pay taxes there and make it a viable culture)?

Just saw this sacrilege. Have to respond.

Montana is not "chunk of dirt."  It is a political entity constituted by people who live together and regulate human interaction occurring ON their chunk of dirt. "Theirs" is the operative word here.  They don't want Washington telling them what the speed limit should be or how political campaigns should be funded or how to manage their forests and ranges. They want control over negotiations with corporations seeking their coal.

Now a word to the Federal gov. Thanks for help building Montana interstates--but that helps the nation, not just Montana.  You won't Californicate Montana without a fight. And remember that the history of Federal intervention in the land of the Big Sky is not one of unqualified success.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2019, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I believe this is incorrect.  In fact, I would say the EC debate was driven by the tension between large (population-wise) and small states every step of the way.

Here I follow the overview of the debate provided in Chapter 2 of The Electoral College Primer 2000, a book with no polemical intent, which schematically outlines the process. The "split" in Congress was initially between 1) those who wanted a popular election of the president and 2) those who wanted Congress to elect him--which would favor smaller states.  The latter option bothered those who felt congressional election compromised the independence of the executive. Those who disliked the former (only three?) were worried that "the masses" might not choose well, but also that it gave more power to the larger states.  Concerned about the debate over proportional representation which had earlier divided Congress, the Committee of Eleven tasked with working out a compromise followed the model of the Connecticut Compromise which had saved the Republic by creating two houses of Congress, one apportioning equal power to states, the other proportional representation to the electorate. The Committee of Eleven then created a two-stage system involving electors and then, in case of a tie, a contingency plan where by the election would be thrown to the House, and the representatives of each state would collectively have 1 vote for their state--13 equally weighted votes in all.

The authors conclude:

The key to acceptance of this two-­stage plan for presidential selection lay in the different character of electoral college and House contingent voting. The electoral college, reflecting in a rough way the population of states, would favor the large states at the cost of the small states—or more accurately, populations rather than equally­weighted states. When the contingent House procedure went into effect—as it most often would—the voting would be one vote per state delegation, thus representing equally weighed individual states regardless of population. This mechanism was a compromise between the principle of population and that of equal state interest. As James Madison later described the electoral college, it was "the result of compromise between the larger and smaller states, giving to the latter the advantage of selecting a President from the candidates, in consideration of the former in selecting the candidates from the people" (Langley and Peirce 22).

This is all fine, but if this was indeed their intention it is not the way it operates, today. Between the emergence of parties, the move away from electors voting themselves rather than for whomever the state told them to, and the winner-take-all system implemented by most states, any advantage to smaller states has been removed. With the EC currently operating as is, the citizens in more populous states actually hold more power in their votes than do the smaller states. Were we to make it proportional, then it would make the voters in the smaller states more powerful. Either way, the EC creates a system of inequity among the voters that is not offset the way it once was, or as it was intended, when the institution was created.

I also find it interesting that Madison said such a thing given that when you read the debates of the Convention, the issue of placating the smaller states was never a part of the discussion. In fact, one solution proffered was the possibility of governors elected the president, which was turned down simply because of the outsized influence of the smaller states. It was also not a factor in Federalist 68 in which Hamilton makes the case for the EC. It is this that leads me to my disagreement with you that this conflict between larger and smaller states leading to the EC was the driver.

*Note: This information differs than previous arguments I made in this thread. This is due, primarily, to an article I found. John F. III Banzhaf, One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College, 13 Vill. L. Rev. 304 (1968)

(04-08-2019, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Anyway, I would just like to get that point out there. I am neither a Constitutional lawyer nor a Congressional historian, so I cannot tell with certainly what the current legal/historical consensus really is about this. But I have recently read several journal and newspaper articles disputing claims that the EC was about protecting slavery (as opposed to preserving the Republic), such as Gregg L. Gary's"No! The Electoral College Was Not Created to Protect Slavery." 

My argument has never been that the EC was created to protect slavery, but rather that it gave more power to slave states. Madison himself said that was one big reason he didn't push harder for direct popular election, because the slave states would lose out on power by going that route. You spoke of The Electoral College Primer 2000, which has some value, but also some errors as it doesn't even dig into the topic of slavery with relation to the EC. By the sheer fact that the apportionment is based on the three-fifths compromise, it is at least related, but as Madison's musings make clear the relationship to the EC and slavery are stronger than that. The evolution of the EC in the Convention was a long one, but the support that made it happen was with regards to slavery and the power the slave states would hold.

Paul Finkelman, The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1145 (2002)

(04-08-2019, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not here trying to establish Framer intent as a criterion of acceptability, but setting forth the record of the debate to re-affirm that, from the get go, the EC was part of the needed compromise between large and small states over proportional representation needed to make the nation work. (In any case, Framer intent was soon out the window, as the logic of the system itself soon required states to vote in blocks to preserve their power.) 

I agree, but not in the way you think. The EC favored the "large" states, which were those with the larger populations due to slaves lacking suffrage. On the second point, I just agree.

(04-08-2019, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: These accounts jive well with what I would call the logic of the "Madisonian system" which, as discussed in Federalist No. 51, sees a DOUBLE SECURITY in a Republic compounded of TWO DISTINCT GOVERNMENTS which serve as a check on one another.  In the arguments against the EC so far proffered on this thread, I have seen little recognition of the importance of state governments to this security. The problem inherent in ignoring states might become more apparent if the EC were abolished and attempts began to jerry-rig a compensating system. Don't see how that could happen without the Federal gov. usurping a range of rights formerly accorded states (e.g., defining who is eligible to vote).

But what role do state governments currently play in this? At one time, when Electors made the decisions and were often state and local government officials, then I can see an argument for that. But in all sincerity I have to ask whether there is any issue with ignoring the states when it comes to electing the president? As I have laid out in this thread, the president is not the leader of the states. It is the leader of a federal bureaucracy. Would it not be true that involving the states themselves in the election of president make the federal and state governments more intertwined, causing less separation between those two distinct governments? If you are to have two distinct governments, then one should have no bearing on the elections of the leader(s) of the other.

[fredtoast]

All of these facts are interesting, but could you guys include some more insults, snarking comments, and vague, leading questions? Then deny you said any of it.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2019, 07:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All of these facts are interesting, but could you guys include some more insults, snarking comments, and vague, leading questions?  Then deny you said any of it.

This is why we can't have good things. This thread has had an extremely civil tone. Given there were a few exceptions

Post 36- Slurs a whole community (that post remains)

Post 76- Was an insult directed toward Stoney (apparently Stoney’s post slurred a whole community and got deleted)

Post 91- Tries to turn it into thread about voter suppression and the bad GOP

Post 114- Accuses another poster of talking out of both sides of his mouth

Post 161- Dude felt insulted and retorted much stronger than he should have, so a few make him the topic for a while

But in general the thread has been civil and informative and you just cannot stand it. So you had to stir the pot. There's a term for a poster that does such things; perhaps someone can help me with the term

[Dill]

(04-08-2019, 04:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: *Note: This information differs than previous arguments I made in this thread. This is due, primarily, to an article I found. John F. III Banzhaf, One Man, 3.312 Votes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College, 13 Vill. L. Rev. 304 (1968)


My argument has never been that the EC was created to protect slavery, but rather that it gave more power to slave states. Madison himself said that was one big reason he didn't push harder for direct popular election, because the slave states would lose out on power by going that route. You spoke of The Electoral College Primer 2000, which has some value, but also some errors as it doesn't even dig into the topic of slavery with relation to the EC. By the sheer fact that the apportionment is based on the three-fifths compromise, it is at least related, but as Madison's musings make clear the relationship to the EC and slavery are stronger than that. The evolution of the EC in the Convention was a long one, but the support that made it happen was with regards to slavery and the power the slave states would hold.

Paul Finkelman, The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1145 (2002)

Can only deal with a snippet at the moment.

1. yeah, Banzhaf seems to be the Father of current weighted voting theories. Not just in politics, also in the corporate world.

2. I don't understand why "giving more power to the slave states" is not also about proportion and the power of larger states over smaller, even if VA is one of the larger. Finkelman argues that Adams rather than Jefferson would likely have won the 1800 election, were it not for the EC proportioned following the Connecticut compromise (1155).  That has to be as much about the small state/large state divide as slavery.
 
Finkelman references the ECP 2000 as a prelude to his discussions of the "myths" of the origins of the electoral college. He laments it does not make slavery a bigger issue, but as I said above, the ECP is merely descriptive and explanatory, not polemical. From the account it presents, there is not really good ground for asserting, as Finkelman claims, that respecting the 3/5ths compromise was the driver. I don't see the evidence is that strong in Finkelman either.  He simply dismisses Pinckney's claim that "the most populous states by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points" as a kind of subterfuge. Hugh Williamson of NC supposedly offers "the real reason" driving the debate: "the largest state will be sure to succede [sic]. This will not be Virga. [sic] however. Her slaves will have no suffrage" (1154). But, why wouldn't Rhode Island and Vermont be equally concerned about this, each with a mere 4 electoral votes compared to VA's 21? And as Gregg (cited in my previous post) asks --why would people like NJ's William Patterson, a pronounced opponent of slavery, push an electoral scheme simply to favor slave states? Finkelman would be more persuasive arguing that, for some Southern representatives at least, the EC was about insuring a Virginian as president.

3. I think Finkelman's own evidence still points to greater concern over the making the president dependent on Congress, which would violate the separation of powers.  As far as Madison arguing "the people at large" are the fittest, Finkelman aptly contextualizes all that in the first section of his argument (1147-50) when he notes that franchise in most states at the time was restricted to property owners, and the qualifications for officerholders higher still.  The "people" in this case were not visualized as unlettered workmen (except maybe in MA).

4. Finally, there is still the fact the electoral college was conceived as a potentially two stage process, were there a tie vote.  The one state one vote principle which then obtains is surely not a nod to the 3/5ths compromise.

[Dill]

(04-08-2019, 08:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is why we can't have good things. This thread has had an extremely civil tone. Given there were a few exceptions

Post 36- Slurs a whole community (that post remains)

Post 76- Was an insult directed toward Stoney (apparently Stoney’s post slurred a whole community and got deleted)

Post 91- Tries to turn it into thread about voter suppression and the bad GOP

Post 114- Accuses another poster of talking out of both sides of his mouth

Post 161- Dude felt insulted and retorted much stronger than he should have, so a few make him the topic for a while

But in general the thread has been civil and informative and you just cannot stand it. So you had to stir the pot. There's a term for a poster that does such things; perhaps someone can help me with the term

I don't know about all the other posts you cite, Bfine, but I am pretty sure that in this case Fred's post is ironic.  Or at least that is how I took it.

It was an indirect way of pointing out that some people were dialoging without snarkily insulting each other.  So he jokingly suggests they spice it up a bit.

(It's possible that he is alluding to a specific post or previous conflict, of course, and you recognize the nuance and I don't.)

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2019, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. I don't understand why "giving more power to the slave states" is not also about proportion and the power of larger states over smaller, even if VA is one of the larger. Finkelman argues that Adams rather than Jefferson would likely have won the 1800 election, were it not for the EC proportioned following the Connecticut compromise (1155).  That has to be as much about the small state/large state divide as slavery.

The issue is that this disparity in size between the states wasn't the driver for the creation of the EC. The drivers were the desire to leave the decision in the hands of the right people in the minds of the founders and to ensure there was a separation from Congress (which I don't disagree with you on).
 

(04-08-2019, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Finkelman references the ECP 2000 as a prelude to his discussions of the "myths" of the origins of the electoral college. He laments it does not make slavery a bigger issue, but as I said above, the ECP is merely descriptive and explanatory, not polemical. From the account it presents, there is not really good ground for asserting, as Finkelman claims, that respecting the 3/5ths compromise was the driver. I don't see the evidence is that strong in Finkelman either.  He simply dismisses Pinckney's claim that "the most populous states by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points" as a kind of subterfuge. Hugh Williamson of NC supposedly offers "the real reason" driving the debate: "the largest state will be sure to succede [sic]. This will not be Virga. [sic] however. Her slaves will have no suffrage" (1154). But, why wouldn't Rhode Island and Vermont be equally concerned about this, each with a mere 4 electoral votes compared to VA's 21? And as Gregg (cited in my previous post) asks --why would people like NJ's William Patterson, a pronounced opponent of slavery, push an electoral scheme simply to favor slave states? Finkelman would be more persuasive arguing that, for some Southern representatives at least, the EC was about insuring a Virginian as president.

But the idea that Virginia would be the decider is rooted in the idea that slave states would hold more power. I think you are mistaking my position, though, that I consider the power to the slave states as the driver. I think that was a component of deciding on the compromise solution, but not the driver for the creation of it. I disagree with Finkelman on his dismissal of the "myth" that the founders didn't trust the masses. While I understand his argument, the EC still puts the decision to a smaller, more elite group.

(04-08-2019, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. I think Finkelman's own evidence still points to greater concern over the making the president dependent on Congress, which would violate the separation of powers.  As far as Madison arguing "the people at large" are the fittest, Finkelman aptly contextualizes all that in the first section of his argument (1147-50) when he notes that franchise in most states at the time was restricted to property owners, and the qualifications for officerholders higher still.  The "people" in this case were not visualized as unlettered workmen (except maybe in MA).

I again don't disagree that this separation was a concern, but that is what resulted in the decision being in an ad hoc assembly rather than with Congress, not the reasoning for the indirect method of election from the onset.

(04-08-2019, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 4. Finally, there is still the fact the electoral college was conceived as a potentially two stage process, were there a tie vote.  The one state one vote principle which then obtains is surely not a nod to the 3/5ths compromise.

I don't really see the tie-breaking procedure as a good argument either way, but that's just my opinion. Especially since in modern times it is an improbability.

[BmorePat87]

(04-08-2019, 01:20 PM)Dill Wrote: The key to acceptance of this two-­stage plan for presidential selection lay in the different character of electoral college and House contingent voting. The electoral college, reflecting in a rough way the population of states, would favor the large states at the cost of the small states—or more accurately, populations rather than equally­weighted states. When the contingent House procedure went into effect—as it most often would—the voting would be one vote per state delegation, thus representing equally weighed individual states regardless of population. This mechanism was a compromise between the principle of population and that of equal state interest. As James Madison later described the electoral college, it was "the result of compromise between the larger and smaller states, giving to the latter the advantage of selecting a President from the candidates, in consideration of the former in selecting the candidates from the people" (Langley and Peirce 22).

This quote appears to actually be from Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America: Second Edition By George C. Edwards

https://books.google.com/books?id=iJSzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=%22The+key+to+acceptance+of+this+two-%C2%ADstage+plan+for+%22&source=bl&ots=cVDhWEvDQH&sig=ACfU3U0Mole1PmIydGO3RGfnl3pGdQqtsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSkMP738HhAhVEuVkKHYARCvsQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20key%20to%20acceptance%20of%20this%20two-%C2%ADstage%20plan%20for%20%22&f=false

The paragraphs preceding explicitly state that the EC was not conceived by the committee members to be a "bulwark for states rights" nor was it created to protect small states. Your quote specifically refers to the process of breaking an electoral tie within the Congress. It concedes that some believed that most elections would be thrown to the House because they expected electors to nominate people from their states, but it goes on to address house Madison expressed greater concern with slave states. He mentions that the framers expected low population states to be quickly populated, closing the gap between small population states and large population states. This did not happen, however, as more states were added. 

So the conclusion is that the use of the CT compromise framework was to resolve issues with slave states. The use of the one vote per state tie breaker in the House was for small states.

The former is what people are trying to suggest protects small states. 

[BmorePat87]

further findings:

earlier in the book they mention a lot of support for a popular election, though many feared voters would not be smart enough and would just pick whoever they knew from their state. So a lot of their concern with big states was centered on this idea. It goes on to state that they believed state legislatures would control most of the selection of delegates and would ultimately be picking the President.

Also here's a timeline of delegate voting:

1. against electors and for congress electing
2. A week later they vote to take that back
3. vote against governors electing
4. vote for state legislatures electing

one month passes. 5-10 happens over a week:
5. Vote against direct election and for Congress electing.
6. vote for electors and for state legislatures picking them
7. vote to reconsider electors
8. Vote for Congress electing
9. vote against congress electing
10. vote for congress electing

A week and a half passes
11. Another committee reports favorably for congress electing
3 weeks pass
12. reject dropping Congress for direct eelction
13. can't agree to add electors
another week passes
14. can't decide, create new committee to decide
another week passes
15. new committee agrees that electors will be picked by state legislatures
16. new committee also agrees that ties will be decided in the house by 1 vote per state
17. EC approved



The book also quotes one historian as noting that the EC "was cobbled together nearly at the last minute and adopted not because the framers believed it would work, but because it was less objectionable than two more obvius alternatives... it had no positive advantages of its own"

another notes that it "was merey a jerry rigged improvisation which has subsequently been endowed with a high theoretical content", which seems to match the influx of justifications for the EC which are not rooted in any of the actual debates at the convention.

He also quotes Madison as saying that small states do not need protection from large states as the large states were diverse in location, economy, and religion, suggesting they were more likely to be rivals than form a coalition against small states.

[BmorePat87]

"Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called states?" -James Wilson

"The President is to act for the people not the states" -James Madison

[Dill]

(04-08-2019, 09:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This quote appears to actually be from Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America: Second Edition By George C. Edwards

https://books.google.com/books?id=iJSzAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=%22The+key+to+acceptance+of+this+two-%C2%ADstage+plan+for+%22&source=bl&ots=cVDhWEvDQH&sig=ACfU3U0Mole1PmIydGO3RGfnl3pGdQqtsw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSkMP738HhAhVEuVkKHYARCvsQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20key%20to%20acceptance%20of%20this%20two-%C2%ADstage%20plan%20for%20%22&f=false

The paragraphs preceding explicitly state that the EC was not conceived by the committee members to be a "bulwark for states rights" nor was it created to protect small states. Your quote specifically refers to the process of breaking an electoral tie within the Congress. It concedes that some believed that most elections would be thrown to the House because they expected electors to nominate people from their states, but it goes on to address house Madison expressed greater concern with slave states. He mentions that the framers expected low population states to be quickly populated, closing the gap between small population states and large population states. This did not happen, however, as more states were added. 

So the conclusion is that the use of the CT compromise framework was to resolve issues with slave states. The use of the one vote per state tie breaker in the House was for small states.

The former is what people are trying to suggest protects small states. 

How do you account for the House contingency plan.

Whoa! Edwards' book was copyrighted in 2004, five years after the publication of the Primer 2000. And notice he leaves out the quote by Madison: "the result of compromise between the larger and smaller states, giving to the latter the advantage of selecting a President from the candidates, in consideration of the former in selecting the candidates from the people." (Though it reappears 3 paragraphs down, on p. 2017.) I recognize a number of quotes in previous paragraphs as well.

 And notice there is a superscript reference to a text note, which we can't access. Probably that reference is to Longley and Peirce. That would still be plagiarism, since Edwards takes their exact wording but doesn't use quotation marks. LOl can we trust this guy? Where are Yale's editors?

No one here is claiming the electoral college was supposed to be a "bulwark" for states rights.  My claim was that the concern for proportion pressed on the debate at all stages. It was a problem that had to be managed somehow. And I see no evidence the smaller states ever stop worrying about that.  The delegates compromise, anticipating a power sharing arrangement in which proportional elector voting throws up candidates which, in case of a tie, turns to the one-state-one vote resolution. And when it comes to electors, a vote in RI or VT has more weight than one from VA. Why that resolution if it is not about small-state buy in?