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

[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?