APP - The Electoral College is ripe for reform

[Publius]

The Electoral College was a great compromise between the balance of power between large and small states. It was negotiated at the ratification convention in 1787 and is now in the constitution. So, without an amendment, we have to live with it. What the framers were unable to foresee, was the emergence of two political spectrums, how they would congregate in rural versus urban and the eventual tendency for the electoral college, with greater frequency, allow the minority vote to win the presidency. I assure you, having a minority rule was never the intent of the framers (more on this below), They believed that the vote and the EC would coincide, and in fact it did, for many years to follow and even then, only once from 1788 until 1999 there was a disparity. Given this fact, clearly majority on both sides (EC and actual vote count) was the intent. But, in the last 2 decades, it's occurred twice. Writ large, the electoral system is ripe for reform.

Wikipedia on Federalist 10:

Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, and toward the compromise.[8] In a debate on June 26, he said that government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".[9]

"Protect against' does not equal 'minority control'. Because, if that were true, then flip argument is just as valid, 'the government ought to protect the majority of the opulent against the minority'. IF one is true, then why not the other? "Why not the other' is far more relevant and applicable today when we are talking about voting blocks of some 65 million or so, as they exist today, but did not exist in the late 18th century.

In essence, the EC was a compromise between the idea of absolute state sovereignty and overreaching federal power. Please note that there is nothing sacred nor reverent about any compromise, as they are, in a sense, necessary and inescapable undesirables where both sides widely disagree on a policy. What "Publius" feared the most were unruly factions with narrow agendas in the electorate taking control. This is the 'mob rule' Republicans famously fear. The right seems to argue that 'mob rule' equals the majority, but that idea does not actually exist anywhere in the Federalist papers. There is NO INTENT nor mention by the framers that the minority, the smaller vote, is supposed to be victorious. The opposite is actually true.

Thing is, today, given the size of the electorate, many many millions more than existed when the Constitution was ratified, each party's vote tally in the neighborhood of some 65 million or so, each, so, if one is honest and looks at the current situation as it really is, both sides, dems and repubs, are a consortium of factions, or 'mobs', if you will. In short, mobs are all we have today, they cannot be avoided, EC or otherwise, so any argument for the EC which says 'the EC solves mob rule problem' is a moot argument.

That can't be valid argument for 3 reasons: 1. The framers never claimed 'mob rule' was minority rule. 2. EC was a way to bolster the voice of smaller states. "Bolster' doesn't equal 'dominance', it just means, made stronger against the bigger states, to diminish the larger states tendency to dominate. 3. Today 'making the voice of small states stronger' is a moot point given that the larger states are 20 times the size of smaller states, who, even after 'making their voices stronger' has little effect given the disparity of size differences compared to the size differences, which were much less, at the time the constitution was ratified. Moot. Capiche? As it it no longer works the way it was intended due to the tremendous size differences and the emergence of right v left politics and the shifting demographics between large and small states comparing now to yesteryear

I think the confusion on the right stems from their misinterpreting what the framers meant by their fear of the 'tyranny of the majority'. What they never did, was seek minority rule, but what they actually did was TEMPER what they believed were the excesses of majority rule. They did this by establishing, in the constitution, a bicameral legislature--a senate and a house of representatives, the electoral college and requiring that the states model their governments similarly. Tempering, which is to say, smoothing out the excesses of majority rule does NOT equal 'favoring minority rule'. Especially when the minority and the majority are now in excess of 65 million people, which means that all we have now are factions, each side is a consortium of factions. Factions are now inescapable.

Another thing, when I make this argument, which is clear, makes sense, I'll present it to Republicans and many on the right who will, or appear to, totally ignore what I just wrote, and continue to spew their nonsense about 'mob rule'. completely misrepresenting what 'Publius' actually wrote, and they will totally ignore the point I just made, won't even comment on it. This happens every time I bring this argument up. They refuse to see what is in front of them. And if you are on the right and are about to make the same blunder, may a suggest that you either engage with me and debate the argument actually made herein, or ignore this post.

Republicans (a number of them, at least) cling to the false idea that the framers were okay with a minority winning, that the only figure that is important is the elector count, ignoring the fact that the popular vote has been tracked in every vote in history. so, if what they were saying is true, that the actual vote count (aka 'popular vote') didn't matter, why in hell has it been tracked in every election since the first election? Why in hell would Hamilton, say this in Federalist 22?

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton was arguing against the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and advocating for a stronger central government under the new Constitution. The quote, "[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail," refers to the principle that in a republican form of government, the majority's will should guide decision-making processes.

Hamilton was concerned that the Articles of Confederation allowed a minority of states to block important legislation, leading to gridlock and inefficiency. By emphasizing the need for the majority to prevail, Hamilton was arguing for a more effective and functional government where the decisions of the majority, rather than a small minority, could drive national policy. This idea was foundational to his support for a new Constitution that balanced federal power while ensuring that majority rule was respected in the legislative process.

And when did Republicans and those on the right start making this argument, that the framers created the EC to prevent 'mob rule' as an argument to justify losing the popular vote? Interestingly enough, I started noticing it not long after a decade of them losing the popular vote for the president. Suddenly, they no longer care about the popular vote. So, they concocted this cocamamy argument so that they could feel better about losing the popular vote. But this is a specious argument, because the minority vote does not equal 'the will of the people',, and that it is a fundamental principle of a republican form of government (i.e., a representative democracy) that the sense of the majority should prevail. IF that is wrong, why in hell did Hamilton say it?

The fact that the electoral vote count occurring as a disparity of the actual vote count resulting in a situation where the elected president does not have will of the people, is occurring too often, where, historically speaking, it only occurred once in over a century. It has occurred twice in a couple of decades. Clearly, the framers could not foresee the demographic shift of the nation which has occurred twe centuries later, that this has resulted in this tendency of EC v popular vote disparity, and thus the electoral college is ripe for reform, the sole point of this thread.

This takes me to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
[ ...section deleted due to the 12000 character limit ...]
For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-vote-plan-replace-electoral-college-n1247159

Bill to join National Popular Vote pact sent to Michigan House floor

Michigan’s 15 electoral votes in presidential elections would always go to the winner of the national popular vote under a bill that cleared a state House committee Tuesday.

www.michiganpublic.org

Yes, Repubs, I know you hate this compact, but, rather than try and win by gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and resting on the laurels on the designs of an antiquated system, i.e., rely on the unavoidable lack of foresight of the framers, where the only way you can win elections is by systemic advantage, may I suggest that you guys try winning by selling something that most people actually want, and win by winning the hearts and minds of the people? Sound like a reasonable idea? I do. You should, too.

In a sense, this compact will force Repubs and 'conservatives' to do just that, and we'll all be the winners, dems and repubs vying equally for the hearts and minds of the electorate, and not being propped up by artifice out of weakness, and thus the compact will result in our eventual becoming more unified.

Isn't that what we all want?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

popular vote compact is just another form of tyranny of the majority.

you morons rant about tyranny of the minority, which is an oxy moron at best, while providing nothing but dramatic and emotional tripe about it's existence and no real evidence of it.

The reality is that a minority can't do anything but block majority tyranny. By that simple logic, the electoral college is doing exactly what the founding fathers wanted. Stopping the tyrannical will of a majority.

 

[Damocles]

The Electoral College is still an amazing way to represent folks. It is, quite literally, like Parliament voting for a Prime Minister, the electoral college is made up of the same number of representatives (House and Senate) for the states and the District of Columbia per the 23rd Amendment, they vote in your behalf just as your MP would if you were in a parliamentary system. The founders did not want the Presidency to be beholden to a vote of the legislature so in order to ensure a separation of powers they created a system that allows for that same representation without giving that vote to the legislative branch.

It's brilliant, it is fair, and it is right. It may seem like a mystery to some folks but that is because they simply do not care to try to understand it not because it is any more complex than the systems they think are "fair" elsewhere.

 

[Publius]

popular vote compact is just another form of tyranny of the majority.

you morons rant about tyranny of the minority, which is an oxy moron at best, while providing nothing but dramatic and emotional tripe about it's existence and no real evidence of it.

The reality is that a minority can't do anything but block majority tyranny. By that simple logic, the electoral college is doing exactly what the founding fathers wanted. Stopping the tyrannical will of a majority.

The framers never advocated or any kind of tyranny they advocated for majority rule. majority rule means people vote and when people vote you have the opposite of tyranny --you have the will of the people not the will of a faction of men.

Your claim is not supported by the writings in The Federalist Papers

 

[Publius]

The Electoral College is still an amazing way to represent folks. It is, quite literally, like Parliament voting for a Prime Minister, the electoral college is made up of the same number of representatives (House and Senate) for the states and the District of Columbia per the 23rd Amendment, they vote in your behalf just as your MP would if you were in a parliamentary system. The founders did not want the Presidency to be beholden to a vote of the legislature so in order to ensure a separation of powers they created a system that allows for that same representation without giving that vote to the legislative branch.

It's brilliant, it is fair, and it is right. It may seem like a mystery to some folks but that is because they simply do not care to try to understand it not because it is any more complex than the systems they think are "fair" elsewhere.

When the will of the people is thwarted twice in two decades as opposed to once in 122 years prior to 1999 the Electoral College is ripe for reform. That is the premise of the OP and I haven't seen a compelling counter argument

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The framers never advocated or any kind of tyranny they advocated for majority rule. majority rule means people vote and when people vote you have the opposite of tyranny --you have the will of the people not the will of a faction of men.

Your claim is not supported by the writings in The Federalist Papers

they did not advocate for majority rule, ever. If they had, then there wouldn't be a three piece government with checks and balances.

your claim is not supported by real evidence. not manufactured out of your delusional interpretations of the federalist papers.

 

[Damocles]

When the will of the people is thwarted twice in two decades as opposed to once in 122 years prior to 1999 the Electoral College is ripe for reform. That is the premise of the OP and I haven't seen a compelling counter argument

"The will of the people" is the reason why a simple democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College was created, like Parliament voting on the Prime Minister, so that your representation votes as you wished them to vote. This "will of the people" argument is nonsense, and applied wholesale only serves to violate the rights of individuals. The only people making this argument do not understand the constitution, what rights actually are, or why we have checks and balances. These are the same people who, when the SCOTUS rules against their wishes and checks the power of the executive or legislature, they believe that the SCOTUS is "going crazy" rather than exercising a check on power and want the SCOTUS to be changed to reflect their opinion always.

 

[Publius]

they did not advocate for majority rule,

That's categorically, absolutely, and fundamentally false.

ever. If they had, then there wouldn't be a three piece government with checks and balances.

You have a misunderstanding of framer intention.

your claim is not supported by real evidence. not manufactured out of your delusional interpretations of the federalist papers.

Hogswoggle:

minority rule is ANTITHETICAL to democracy. It is ANTITHETICAL to a Constitutional Republic. These terms are NOT mutually exclusive.

To ratify the constitution, a majority of states had to ratify it.
To become President, you have to win a MAJORITY of the electoral college, with 270 being the minimum.
To pass legislation, a bill has to win a majority in the senate and in the house before the President will be allowed to sign it.
To become Governor, you have to win a majority of votes.
To become an assemblyman or councilman, you have to win a majority of votes.
To become State AG, you have to win a majority of votes.
For ballot initiatives to become law, they have to win a majority of votes.

Etc., etc., etc.

Everywhere where we have voting, MAJORITY WINS. This is democracy, this is majority rules, period, end of argument.

I can't even fathom who you even reached your conclusion. Really, it makes no sense.

You see, what you have wrong is this; They did NOT argue for minority rule, they argued for majority rule, and the EC, and the Bicameral Legislature, and the two senators per state, were their way of diluting the TENDENCY of the majority to abuse the minority. they used Athenian democracy as an example of this.

But they sure as hell did NOT argue for 'minority rule', so, on that point, you are absolutely in error.

• Federalist No. 51: Madison again emphasizes the importance of majority rule while advocating for checks and balances to prevent abuse by the majority:
  • “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this… is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.” (Federalist No. 51)

Federalist 51 is Madison's most famous paper, but he does NOT argue for 'minority rule', only to temper the excesses of majority rule.

• Federalist No. 22: Alexander Hamilton underscores the importance of majority rule in legislative decision-making,
  • “The fundamental maxim of republican government… requires that the sense of the majority should prevail..” (Federalist No. 22)

Here Hamilton is precisely arguing for majority rule and argues AGAINST 'equal suffrage among the states'.

Majority rules is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Now, sure, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison worried about the problems of democracy, and they used Athenian democracy as an example.

What was that fear? That a faction or factions would fall prey to the manipulative tactics, thus strengthen the authority of a demagogue, who, in turn, would game the system in order to acquire power, and once acquired, would further game it to acquire total power.

in short, they were worried about FACTIONS, which is to say, MINORITIES acquiring power and exacting their will on the majority which cater to the faction, and NOT the majority. This would be, essentially, tyranny of the minority.

No where in the Federalist papers do they equate 'majority rule' with a 'mob'.

They merely argue for a system that places a check on majority power, to dilute it's excesses. That's it.

The Federalist Papers emphasize various principles of government, including the idea of majority rule, though they often focus on balancing majority power with protections for minority rights.

 

[IBDaMann]

The framers never advocated or any kind of tyranny they advocated for majority rule.

Nope. They advocated for individual liberty and the prevention of tyranny. The Framers had cast off the tyranny of the king of England and didn't want any other tyranny to take its place.

Freedom. Individual liberty. Enforcement of Constitutionally guaranteed rights ... not "majority rule."

"Majority rule" means tyranny of the mob. Think BLM violence, rioting, looting, etc.... The Founders did not want that; they wanted rule of law, and not for the law to be whatever the mob declares it to be.

 

[Publius]

"The will of the people" is the reason why a simple democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority.

Thats utterly false. And do no use the term 'simple democracy' since we have a representative democracy.

Tyranny is where a ruler or a ruler of a faction exact their will over the populace where the checks of such governance are removed.

Wherever there is a vote, you have democracy. Democracy is the opposite of tyranny. The will of the people cannot be tyranny, ever.

Simple because it's opposite, would be the will of the minority, how is that better? It's an absurd logic.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tyranny.

In Federalist No. 47. In this paper, Madison argues that the accumulation of all powers—legislative, executive, and judiciary—in the hands of one person, or even a single faction, constitutes the very definition of tyranny. This reflects his concern that without a separation of powers, there would be no checks and balances to prevent the abuse of authority, leading to a situation where there is no effective democratic opposition to the concentration of power.

The Electoral College was created, like Parliament voting on the Prime Minister, so that your representation votes as you wished them to vote. This "will of the people" argument is nonsense, and applied wholesale only serves to violate the rights of individuals.

Your agreement is ridiculous. What do you think 'we the people' refers to? The minority? Get your history straight.

No vote is going to make eveyrone happy, and those that are not made happy, are not victims of tyranny, it's the price paid to live in a democracy.

The only people making this argument do not understand the constitution, what rights actually are, or why we have checks and balances. These are the same people who, when the SCOTUS rules against their wishes and checks the power of the executive or legislature, they believe that the SCOTUS is "going crazy" rather than exercising a check on power and want the SCOTUS to be changed to reflect their opinion always.

See above. Any system that empowers the will of a faction where checks and balances are removed, that's tyranny. That's what we have in the SCOTUS, currently. They conservatives on that court, with a minority so weakened by their numbers of 3, provide NO check on the power of the six, the power of 6 unelected men (and woman), five of whom were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote, noting, as stated in the OP, the framers NEVER argued for minority rule, they constitute a de facto judicial tyranny. You will not find any argument to the point that 'majority rule equals tyranny' (they argued FOR majority rule, though they sought to temper it's excesses), in the federalist papers, nor will you find it in the arguments presented at the constitution ratification convention of 1787, nor in Madison's notes of the speeches given at the convention.

 

[Damocles]

Thats utterly false.

Tyranny is where a ruler or a ruler of a faction exact their will over the populace where the checks of such governance are removed.

Wherever there is a vote, you have democracy. Democracy is the opposite of tyranny. The will of the people cannot be tyranny, ever.

Simple because it's opposite, would be the will of the minority. How is that better? It's an absurd logic.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tyranny.

In Federalist No. 47. In this paper, Madison argues that the accumulation of all powers—legislative, executive, and judiciary—in the hands of one person, or even a single faction, constitutes the very definition of tyranny. This reflects his concern that without a separation of powers, there would be no checks and balances to prevent the abuse of authority, leading to a situation where there is no effective democratic opposition to the concentration of power.


See above. Any system that empowers the will of a faction where checks and balances are removed, that's tyranny. That's what we have in the SCOTUS, currently. They conservatives on that court, with a minority so weakened by their numbers of 3, provide NO check on the power of the six, the power of 6 unelected men, five of whom were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote, noting, as stated in the OP, the framers NEVER argued for minority rule, they constitute a de facto judicial tyranny. You will not find any argument to the point that 'majority rule equals tyranny' (they argued FOR majority rule, though they sought to temper it's excesses), in the federalist papers, the arguments presented at the constitution ratification convention of 1787, nor in Madison's notes of the speeches given at the convention.

You, sir are an idiot, not even a useful idiot. Simple democracy is not a form of government you would often like.

Too often you would find that the majority simply doesn't want what you think they should want. Without the checks and balances afforded by our constitutional republic we would still have segregation (if not outright slavery) Without the checks on the power of the legislature and the Executive Plessy v Ferguson would never have been a thing, the simple majority would vote and our outrage (I assume you too would be outraged, not just me) would not matter, nor would their (or our) rights.

Thankfully our founders understood that rights do not come from democracy, they are something we are born with and need to be protected, specifically from the government.

Anyway, your argument is short on thought, doesn't understand what checks and balances are, does not realize that simple democracy is literally the "form of government that allows the will of a faction" to violate the rights of another group, and begins with a premise that is woefully ignorant. It is usually about this time that I stop talking to folks, because people can read what I have written regardless of what you say afterwards, and they can determine what they believe based on that. Thankfully this is a written format, one that you cannot delete my words from, so folks can read them even if you say something idiotic that I do not respond to....

 

[Publius]

You, sir are an idiot, not even a useful idiot. Simple democracy is not a form of government you would often like.

Too often you would find that the majority simply doesn't want what you think they should want. Without the checks and balances afforded by our constitutional republic we would still have segregation (if not outright slavery) Without the checks on the power of the legislature and the Executive Plessy v Ferguson would never have been a thing, the simple majority would vote and our outrage (I assume you too would be outraged, not just me) would not matter, nor would their (or our) rights.

Thankfully our founders understood that rights do not come from democracy, they are something we are born with and need to be protected, specifically from the government.

Anyway, your argument is short on thought, doesn't understand what checks and balances are, does not realize that simple democracy is literally the "form of government that allows the will of a faction" to violate the rights of another group, and begins with a premise that is woefully ignorant. It is usually about this time that I stop talking to folks, because people can read what I have written regardless of what you say afterwards, and they can determine what they believe based on that. Thankfully this is a written format, one that you cannot delete my words from, so folks can read them even if you say something idiotic that I do not respond to....

There are tons of elections held in the United States and in each of those elections majority wins.

What's peculiar and rather odd as you seem to be ignorant of that simple fact

 

[Publius]

You, sir are an idiot, not even a useful idiot. Simple democracy is not a form of government you would often like.

Too often you would find that the majority simply doesn't want what you think they should want. Without the checks and balances afforded by our constitutional republic we would still have segregation (if not outright slavery) Without the checks on the power of the legislature and the Executive Plessy v Ferguson would never have been a thing, the simple majority would vote and our outrage (I assume you too would be outraged, not just me) would not matter, nor would their (or our) rights.

I regret to inform you that democracy means we have elections, and in elections, every one of them, the majority wins.

Thankfully our founders understood that rights do not come from democracy, they are something we are born with and need to be protected, specifically from the government.

Yeah, the bit about 'inalienable rights'. funny thing though, without a government with guns to protect your rights, 'inalienable rights' doesn't mean much. Because, an anarchy won't respect your 'inalienable rights'. So, how do we get said government, the kind that will protect your rights? A dictatorship won't protect your rights. A monarchy won't protect your rights.

Only A democracy, a representative democracy, AKA 'a constitutional republic'.

How do we achieve that democracy?

We decided we need a constitution.

We negotiate what goes in it.

We debate it. The feds against the anti-feds.

Then we vote to ratify it. Majority wins.

9 states voted to ratify it, a majority, so DEMOCRACY gave us our Constitutional Republic.

And you call me an idiot? How quaint.

Anyway, your argument is short on thought, doesn't understand what checks and balances are, does not realize that simple democracy is literally the "form of government that allows the will of a faction" to violate the rights of another group, and begins with a premise that is woefully ignorant. It is usually about this time that I stop talking to folks, because people can read what I have written regardless of what you say afterwards, and they can determine what they believe based on that. Thankfully this is a written format, one that you cannot delete my words from, so folks can read them even if you say something idiotic that I do not respond to....

Do you understand what a strawman argument is?

No one is arguing for a democracy without checks and balances.

What is obvious is that you did not actually read the OP.

 

[IBDaMann]

Thats utterly false.

It's completely true. Everybody wants what he wants and will seek to accomplish it. The majority will always want that which is not wanted by the minority, and if the minority is not protected from the majority, then the majority will trample the liberties of the minority ... and in the case of Democrats, will incarcerate and even execute people simply for their differing views.

You're a leftist. You know very well that leftists will not hesitate to utterly destroy the lives of those whose views differ somewhat. If it weren't for the US being a republic and not a democracy, the Democrats would have already had law enforcement round up all "dissenters" as "dangerous subversives" at 3:00 am by kicking in their doors and hauling them off to prison.

And do no use the term 'simple democracy' since we have a representative democracy.

Nope. We have a representative republic. The US is not a democracy.

Tyranny is where a ruler or a ruler of a faction exact their will over the populace where the checks of such governance are removed.

Nope. You're a moron. Tyranny is where the individual liberties of the people are infringed. A republic protects those individual liberties whereas a democracy, by definition, does not, because in a democracy, the majority gets to determine who has what rights, and can even determine that some are more equal than others. Only in a republic can you have rule of law instead of rule by mob.

Wherever there is a vote, you have democracy.

Wherever you have really stupid morons, you'll have idiots who need to hijack the word "voting" to mean "democracy."

Voting does not equal democracy. Don't be such a moron.

Democracy is the opposite of tyranny.

Nope. Freedom is the opposite of tyranny. Freedom is acquired through the rule of law that guarantees minority rights and individual liberties, and this cannot be accomplished anywhere the whim of the majority establishes the law.

The will of the people cannot be tyranny, ever.

The will of the people is tyranny if it ever violates individual liberties. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tyranny.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

The Electoral College was a great compromise between the balance of power between large and small states. It was negotiated at the ratification convention in 1787 and is now in the constitution. So, without an amendment, we have to live with it. What the framers were unable to foresee, was the emergence of two political spectrums, how they would congregate in rural versus urban and the eventual tendency for the electoral college, with greater frequency, allow the minority vote to win the presidency. I assure you, having a minority rule was never the intent of the framers (more on this below), They believed that the vote and the EC would coincide, and in fact it did, for many years to follow and even then, only once from 1788 until 1999 there was a disparity. Given this fact, clearly majority on both sides (EC and actual vote count) was the intent. But, in the last 2 decades, it's occurred twice. Writ large, the electoral system is ripe for reform.

Wikipedia on Federalist 10:

Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, and toward the compromise.[8] In a debate on June 26, he said that government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".[9]

"Protect against' does not equal 'minority control'. Because, if that were true, then flip argument is just as valid, 'the government ought to protect the majority of the opulent against the minority'. IF one is true, then why not the other? "Why not the other' is far more relevant and applicable today when we are talking about voting blocks of some 65 million or so, as they exist today, but did not exist in the late 18th century.

In essence, the EC was a compromise between the idea of absolute state sovereignty and overreaching federal power. Please note that there is nothing sacred nor reverent about any compromise, as they are, in a sense, necessary and inescapable undesirables where both sides widely disagree on a policy. What "Publius" feared the most were unruly factions with narrow agendas in the electorate taking control. This is the 'mob rule' Republicans famously fear. The right seems to argue that 'mob rule' equals the majority, but that idea does not actually exist anywhere in the Federalist papers. There is NO INTENT nor mention by the framers that the minority, the smaller vote, is supposed to be victorious. The opposite is actually true.

Thing is, today, given the size of the electorate, many many millions more than existed when the Constitution was ratified, each party's vote tally in the neighborhood of some 65 million or so, each, so, if one is honest and looks at the current situation as it really is, both sides, dems and repubs, are a consortium of factions, or 'mobs', if you will. In short, mobs are all we have today, they cannot be avoided, EC or otherwise, so any argument for the EC which says 'the EC solves mob rule problem' is a moot argument.

That can't be valid argument for 3 reasons: 1. The framers never claimed 'mob rule' was minority rule. 2. EC was a way to bolster the voice of smaller states. "Bolster' doesn't equal 'dominance', it just means, made stronger against the bigger states, to diminish the larger states tendency to dominate. 3. Today 'making the voice of small states stronger' is a moot point given that the larger states are 20 times the size of smaller states, who, even after 'making their voices stronger' has little effect given the disparity of size differences compared to the size differences, which were much less, at the time the constitution was ratified. Moot. Capiche? As it it no longer works the way it was intended due to the tremendous size differences and the emergence of right v left politics and the shifting demographics between large and small states comparing now to yesteryear

I think the confusion on the right stems from their misinterpreting what the framers meant by their fear of the 'tyranny of the majority'. What they never did, was seek minority rule, but what they actually did was TEMPER what they believed were the excesses of majority rule. They did this by establishing, in the constitution, a bicameral legislature--a senate and a house of representatives, the electoral college and requiring that the states model their governments similarly. Tempering, which is to say, smoothing out the excesses of majority rule does NOT equal 'favoring minority rule'. Especially when the minority and the majority are now in excess of 65 million people, which means that all we have now are factions, each side is a consortium of factions. Factions are now inescapable.

Another thing, when I make this argument, which is clear, makes sense, I'll present it to Republicans and many on the right who will, or appear to, totally ignore what I just wrote, and continue to spew their nonsense about 'mob rule'. completely misrepresenting what 'Publius' actually wrote, and they will totally ignore the point I just made, won't even comment on it. This happens every time I bring this argument up. They refuse to see what is in front of them. And if you are on the right and are about to make the same blunder, may a suggest that you either engage with me and debate the argument actually made herein, or ignore this post.

Republicans (a number of them, at least) cling to the false idea that the framers were okay with a minority winning, that the only figure that is important is the elector count, ignoring the fact that the popular vote has been tracked in every vote in history. so, if what they were saying is true, that the actual vote count (aka 'popular vote') didn't matter, why in hell has it been tracked in every election since the first election? Why in hell would Hamilton, say this in Federalist 22?

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton was arguing against the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and advocating for a stronger central government under the new Constitution. The quote, "[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail," refers to the principle that in a republican form of government, the majority's will should guide decision-making processes.

Hamilton was concerned that the Articles of Confederation allowed a minority of states to block important legislation, leading to gridlock and inefficiency. By emphasizing the need for the majority to prevail, Hamilton was arguing for a more effective and functional government where the decisions of the majority, rather than a small minority, could drive national policy. This idea was foundational to his support for a new Constitution that balanced federal power while ensuring that majority rule was respected in the legislative process.

And when did Republicans and those on the right start making this argument, that the framers created the EC to prevent 'mob rule' as an argument to justify losing the popular vote? Interestingly enough, I started noticing it not long after a decade of them losing the popular vote for the president. Suddenly, they no longer care about the popular vote. So, they concocted this cocamamy argument so that they could feel better about losing the popular vote. But this is a specious argument, because the minority vote does not equal 'the will of the people',, and that it is a fundamental principle of a republican form of government (i.e., a representative democracy) that the sense of the majority should prevail. IF that is wrong, why in hell did Hamilton say it?

The fact that the electoral vote count occurring as a disparity of the actual vote count resulting in a situation where the elected president does not have will of the people, is occurring too often, where, historically speaking, it only occurred once in over a century. It has occurred twice in a couple of decades. Clearly, the framers could not foresee the demographic shift of the nation which has occurred twe centuries later, that this has resulted in this tendency of EC v popular vote disparity, and thus the electoral college is ripe for reform, the sole point of this thread.

This takes me to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
[ ...section deleted due to the 12000 character limit ...]
For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-vote-plan-replace-electoral-college-n1247159

Bill to join National Popular Vote pact sent to Michigan House floor

Michigan’s 15 electoral votes in presidential elections would always go to the winner of the national popular vote under a bill that cleared a state House committee Tuesday.

www.michiganpublic.org

Yes, Repubs, I know you hate this compact, but, rather than try and win by gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and resting on the laurels on the designs of an antiquated system, i.e., rely on the unavoidable lack of foresight of the framers, where the only way you can win elections is by systemic advantage, may I suggest that you guys try winning by selling something that most people actually want, and win by winning the hearts and minds of the people? Sound like a reasonable idea? I do. You should, too.

In a sense, this compact will force Repubs and 'conservatives' to do just that, and we'll all be the winners, dems and repubs vying equally for the hearts and minds of the electorate, and not being propped up by artifice out of weakness, and thus the compact will result in our eventual becoming more unified.

Isn't that what we all want?

tyranny of the majority means dumb idiots like you being convinced free speech is bad.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Interesting how back then Democrats wanted slaves counted for electoral apportionment, and today Democrats want illegal aliens in the US counted for electoral apportionment...

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Thats utterly false. And do no use the term 'simple democracy' since we have a representative democracy.

Tyranny is where a ruler or a ruler of a faction exact their will over the populace where the checks of such governance are removed.

Wherever there is a vote, you have democracy. Democracy is the opposite of tyranny. The will of the people cannot be tyranny, ever.

Simple because it's opposite, would be the will of the minority, how is that better? It's an absurd logic.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tyranny.

In Federalist No. 47. In this paper, Madison argues that the accumulation of all powers—legislative, executive, and judiciary—in the hands of one person, or even a single faction, constitutes the very definition of tyranny. This reflects his concern that without a separation of powers, there would be no checks and balances to prevent the abuse of authority, leading to a situation where there is no effective democratic opposition to the concentration of power.

Your agreement is ridiculous. What do you think 'we the people' refers to? The minority? Get your history straight.

No vote is going to make eveyrone happy, and those that are not made happy, are not victims of tyranny, it's the price paid to live in a democracy.



See above. Any system that empowers the will of a faction where checks and balances are removed, that's tyranny. That's what we have in the SCOTUS, currently. They conservatives on that court, with a minority so weakened by their numbers of 3, provide NO check on the power of the six, the power of 6 unelected men (and woman), five of whom were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote, noting, as stated in the OP, the framers NEVER argued for minority rule, they constitute a de facto judicial tyranny. You will not find any argument to the point that 'majority rule equals tyranny' (they argued FOR majority rule, though they sought to temper it's excesses), in the federalist papers, nor will you find it in the arguments presented at the constitution ratification convention of 1787, nor in Madison's notes of the speeches given at the convention.

people can be convinced to vote away freedoms.

then it's a democratic tyranny.

a constitutional republic is what we are.

 

[ZenMode]

The electoral college served a purpose long ago, when it took a month for a letter to get from the east coast to the west coast. There's no shortage of readily accessible information. Information from around the world is literally is in the palm of our hands, sometimes in real time. No candidate is going to be a surprise tyrant for the country.

I want every vote to count equally, not have a system where a vote in Wyoming counts double that of a vote in California.

Popular vote worlds in every election, at every level of government,from coast to coast. There's no reason it shouldn't work in Presidential elections.

 

[IBDaMann]

The electoral college served a purpose long ago,

The electoral college still serves its original purpose. It's appears you have no idea what that purpose is.

There's no shortage of readily accessible information.

There's no shortage of Tech-Illuminati controlled propaganda. Correct.

Truthful information, however, is in short supply.

I want every vote to count equally,

Every electoral vote is exactly equal to every other electoral vote. You seem to be greatly misinformed.

... not have a system where a vote in Wyoming counts double that of a vote in California.

Each Wyoming electoral vote counts equally to any California electoral vote. It's just that California gets more of them.

Popular vote worlds in every election, at every level of government,from coast to coast. There's no reason it shouldn't work in Presidential elections.

So we finally get to the root of your misunderstanding. You don't understand that the US is a republic of united states and that the united states are voting for the President of those united states. Instead, you think the US is an amorphous, democratic non-republic. Got it.

Nope. You are mistaken.

 

[ZenMode]

The electoral college still serves its original purpose. It's appears you have no idea what that purpose is.


There's no shortage of Tech-Illuminati controlled propaganda. Correct.

Truthful information, however, is in short supply.


Every electoral vote is exactly equal to every other electoral vote. You seem to be greatly misinformed.


Each Wyoming electoral vote counts equally to any California electoral vote. It's just that California gets more of them.


So we finally get to the root of your misunderstanding. You don't understand that the US is a republic of united states and that the united states are voting for the President of those united states. Instead, you think the US is an amorphous, democratic non-republic. Got it.

Nope. You are mistaken.

The electoral college was primarily put into place to avoid the masses being duped by a tyrant or some other completely unacceptable candidate and voting that person into office. This was in a time when there were no TV's, no way to quickly distribute information, no internet, etc.

That isn't the case today. No candidate is going to 'sneak up' on the country.

While each vote counts the same within the state, the influence is unequal when you look at the ratio of state population to the number of electoral votes. Yes, CA gets more electoral votes than Wyoming, but a vote in Wyoming counts more than double a vote in CA because the population differences don't align with the electoral votes differences.

That isn't how voting should work. When I vote for Governor, my vote (in Maricopa County) counts identically to a vote in every other county in AZ. How ridiculous would it be to implement an intra-state, electoral college for each county.