No, northern states were for the 3/5 compromise because it took power away from slave states, the divisions on the EC were not between slave and free states but between high and low population states. Virginia was against it, as were New York and Pennsylvania.
That has nothing to do with the size of the house. The representation was for the state, not the people.
The House voting to give themselves a pay raise has nothing to do with the House?
Iām all for the idea of having more CongressCritters, so long as they get paid less than they are now.
What? The northern states argued that as property, slaves should count as population at allā¦
I havenāt heard a single candidate from the right calling for the electoral college to be done away with.
Because the EC is becoming the only way they can win.
Theyād have to completely change the party if the EC went away.
That would also have to be passed by the Senate and Prez. So it has nothing to do with the size of the house. The size gives states with larger populations more accurate representation. The Senate ensures smaller states have equal representation.
The hilarious thing is imagine if the EC had done kind of what the founders intended and decided not to elect Trump. Can you imagine the firestorm from the right aimed at the EC in that scenario? Nah, Iām sure all those vehemently defending the EC in this thread wouldnāt change their tune at allllll.
1 Like
Correct, both houses and the white house love to give themselves raises. That needs to change.
From Federalist 68:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,āā yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
The EC failed to do their duty.
7 Likes
Their intent was a compromise between having the president elected by congress, which would have made them too powerful, and the uninformed masses. While they established the electoral college, they did not specify how the electoral college votes would be cast. That didnāt come until decades later. So, are you in favor of keeping it, changing it or getting rid of it?
Maybe if we were used to the idea that we let representatives elect the president it would be different. But I agree with the point that the EC was initially intended to prevent someone like Trump from ever having the office.
I find it odd that the unintended consequence is that the only votes that matter are in a handful of states and have been for the last 30 years. Everyone elseās vote is pretty much a waste of time.
And everyone is totally okay with that?
It was a compromise on how to apportion the house.
Youāll never get small state senators to agree to give up their power.
Another gem from Fed. 68:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
1 Like
And therefore electors as wellā¦
No, they just didnāt want normal people to have too much say. One of the original plans was for the House to elect the President.
Trump is exactly who they wanted to be president. Not a professional politicianā¦
Iād get rid of it. It doesnāt work as intended. It empowers too few people. It distorts national priorities. It robs too many people of a meaningful vote. It irreversibly entrenched the two party system.
But Iād redo our entire voting system along with getting rid of it.
5 Likes
Nope. The founders saw populism as a threat to the nation. They never intended someone as hopelessly uninformed as him to be president.
3 Likes
