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

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2019, 12:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: And I'd still say the say of the people should count more in a federal POTUS election. Congress, OK that's different, I get that. Representatives from each state get voted for in the states, then get together in Washington and negotiate stuff. And smaller states are overrepresented, but I'm not suggesting changing that. But POTUS, as I see it, should be for all Americans and so every American vote should count equally in my understanding of a fair nationwide election (always putting aside how some Americans have no vote at all, which is still absurd). I get the points against it somehow, I'm just not convinced.

I agree with you on this. I think where you're having trouble, and the reason debates around the Electoral College stall, is similar to a lot of differences between the US and the rest of the Western world. Democratic theory has evolved since the founding of this country. The Age of Enlightenment was a progressive movement at the time, but those ideas are now over 200 years old. A lot of Europe has continued that progress while the United States, because it is more conservative than most Western nations, has not moved on as significantly.

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.

Direct election, citizens having their say directly, is a more progressive position in democratic theory. While the rest of the developed world has moved on, the United States in its more conservative way has struggled with this. Democratic theory has left the United States behind.

We still argue about a mechanism that is severely outdated that was placed in the Constitution 230 years ago. Jefferson, one of the more progressive minded Framers, argued for a mechanism to be put in place that every 20 years the Constitution would be changed, updated for the times. There is little doubt in my mind that any of the Framers, were they to see the changes in the flows of information and the way democratic theory has evolved, would be baffled by our adherence to their compromise solution.