11-10-2016, 06:28 PM
The Electoral College was a compromise between popular vote and Congressional vote. Some wanted Congress to pick while others wanted a popular vote. The slave states would never agree to a popular vote, however, since they were afford additional representation in congress thanks to the 3/5th's compromise. People like Madison, however, worried that having a group that was constantly together (Congress) picking the President would cause issues.
So they agreed that the people would vote for electors who could not be elected officials who would then get together and pick the President. The concept is the masses vote for smart people to make the decision. You didn't vote for a candidate, there was no "winner take all" of the electors.
We eventually evolved into a system where you voted for the candidate, not the elector, and the electors where then chosen and had to all vote for which ever candidate got a plurality of the vote.
The system was never meant to be truly democratic, nor was it meant to prevent large cities from picking the President, despite what a recent meme tries to tell us. The system as a whole can only be replaced via a constitutional amendment, however, you can change how electors are assigned without one.
A constitutional amendment will not pass anytime soon. That requires 38 states to be on board and red states have no reason to agree to this right now. They've lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections but have managed to win 3 of those 5 elections thanks to this system. They benefit from voters in Wyoming being worth 3.5 times what a voter in California is worth.
Arguments in favor suggest that it keeps the opinion of all of the states heard, but it does so be stating that citizens in small states are worth more than citizens in big states and making voters of the minority party in states voiceless. The popular vote makes more sense. There are arguments against it, but it would actually mean candidates now have a reason to go to pockets in opposite color states that house their supporters.
It won't be a system like that any time soon, however, so if Democrats want to win the white house, they need to start fielding candidates who can win by more than half a million. And, yes, it did sound silly when I typed that Democrats can't win if they can only get half a million more votes...
So they agreed that the people would vote for electors who could not be elected officials who would then get together and pick the President. The concept is the masses vote for smart people to make the decision. You didn't vote for a candidate, there was no "winner take all" of the electors.
We eventually evolved into a system where you voted for the candidate, not the elector, and the electors where then chosen and had to all vote for which ever candidate got a plurality of the vote.
The system was never meant to be truly democratic, nor was it meant to prevent large cities from picking the President, despite what a recent meme tries to tell us. The system as a whole can only be replaced via a constitutional amendment, however, you can change how electors are assigned without one.
A constitutional amendment will not pass anytime soon. That requires 38 states to be on board and red states have no reason to agree to this right now. They've lost the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections but have managed to win 3 of those 5 elections thanks to this system. They benefit from voters in Wyoming being worth 3.5 times what a voter in California is worth.
Arguments in favor suggest that it keeps the opinion of all of the states heard, but it does so be stating that citizens in small states are worth more than citizens in big states and making voters of the minority party in states voiceless. The popular vote makes more sense. There are arguments against it, but it would actually mean candidates now have a reason to go to pockets in opposite color states that house their supporters.
It won't be a system like that any time soon, however, so if Democrats want to win the white house, they need to start fielding candidates who can win by more than half a million. And, yes, it did sound silly when I typed that Democrats can't win if they can only get half a million more votes...
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
