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

[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.