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

[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.