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

[BmorePat87]

(04-08-2019, 10:39 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?  

Apparently they're basically the same series of books from Yale. Longley and Peirce died, so Edwards, who is a well known political science author, continued the series. 

With regards to the Madison quote, I'd point you to the distinction drawn in the book where they clearly saw the second stage (in the event of a tie) as the actual compromise for small states. To answer your question at the end, the resolution is rooted in a need to give slave states a reason to accept this. Representation in Congress > voting population for states with 15-40% slaves. 

Also, the argument of states rights has come up here. I know you didn't, but I wanted to point it out.