Alternatively, with a simple bill we can establish an EC so large or doesn't effectively matter. We would just repeal the inter-war bill freezing the size of the House of Representatives and set the ratio to something that means even Montana gets 20 EC votes.
Alternatively, with a simple bill we can establish an EC so large or doesn't effectively matter.
Well it's still up to the states to determine how electors are determined. That's because the president was intentionally designed to not be a prime minister (speaker of the house) because they are intentionally not elected in the same way as the house
In theory a state could decide to just have the legislature vote. But in reality most, if not all states, have constitutional rules about having to have an election.
But that's a tangential consideration to expanding the EC. If someone needed 5,000 votes for the EC then it would be very hard for the middle states to swing that election with their land, no matter how they selected their electors. And at the end of the day, that's the point. People should vote, not land. We already have the Senate that gives equal representation to each state and acts as a representative for land. There's no reason to have the EC doing the same and it wasn't the EC's original purpose.
I admit I have a ideological bias in favor of the current system because it makes a full sweep more difficult, limiting the federal government.
But,
There’s no reason to have the EC doing the same and it wasn’t the EC’s original purpose.
Yes it partially was. The point was to have the president basically be the middle point between state representation in the Senate, and popularish representation in the House.
It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House. Otherwise they wouldn't have involved the people and states at all. It was a compromise between the House and a popular election. Between Congress and the President being too close and a democratic mob running things. It was also part of their idea that land ownership mattered.
But nothing in the Constitution requires us to remain tied to the land and the house was supposed to keep expanding. It expanded slower and slower over time though until it straight up stopped expanding in the 1930's. Representation in the house was supposed to be far more personal, you were supposed to be able to sit down and talk with your rep.
That's why the EC has started diverging from the popular ballot. We're too big for the current cap on representatives to effectively represent. With the original ratio we'd have around 10,000 members of Congress. Even a tenth of that would go a long way to restoring the electoral system and breaking the power dynamics in Congress that favor mega donors.
It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House.
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying it was designed to be representative of the people(also represented by the house) and the states(also represented by the senate).
You're thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises. At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly.
At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president.
I'm not watching a 22 minute video to find whatever bit of information you're pointing to. I'm also not sure you understand the difference between the people and state interests. State interests were represented by the Senate and Senators appointed by the governors.
Having them elect the president is just a king elected by nobles by another name. That's why it was a compromise between the people directly electing the president in a popular election or Congress (as a whole) doing it.
Okay you can dismiss it, but how about I just show you what the constitution says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
The electors are determined by the state legislature. Same as what was intended of the senate.
Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors.
And by 1832 they were the only ones. States go back and forth for the first decade or so and then they all go in on elections.
But that's besides the point. This isn't the Constitution telling us the governors will appoint electors. The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand. That was why the conversation was Congress, the People's will indirectly, or a popular vote directly. Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise. The founding fathers didn't even consider putting an appointment system for electors into the Constitution.
I'm not even sure why you're arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?
That was why the conversation was Congress, the People’s will indirectly, or a popular vote directly.
Source?
The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand.
But they also knew some states would prefer it and may be reluctant to ratify if a popular vote were required.
Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise.
How is that a compromise? Unless you mean because it gave the states the authority, which yk, is what I said.
I’m not even sure why you’re arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?
You said "At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly."
Which is untrue. And again, the electoral college was intentionally designed to be a middle ground between "popular interest" and "state interest"- you falsely said "You’re thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises."- which is not what I was thinking of.
The number of electors states were given was guaranteed to be 4 + population. The 4 constant was for the same reason as the senate 2 constant, to fairly represent all states, + population was for the same reason as the house- to represent the population of the country as a whole.
The source is cited above. I'm not surprised you've ignored it though. You're clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists. Which is fairly consistent with GOP propaganda about ignoring the will of the people.
I can already hear it...
wEr,E a REpUbLiC nOt A dEMoCrOcy111
Alternatively, with a simple bill we can establish an EC so large or doesn't effectively matter. We would just repeal the inter-war bill freezing the size of the House of Representatives and set the ratio to something that means even Montana gets 20 EC votes.
Well it's still up to the states to determine how electors are determined. That's because the president was intentionally designed to not be a prime minister (speaker of the house) because they are intentionally not elected in the same way as the house
In theory a state could decide to just have the legislature vote. But in reality most, if not all states, have constitutional rules about having to have an election.
But that's a tangential consideration to expanding the EC. If someone needed 5,000 votes for the EC then it would be very hard for the middle states to swing that election with their land, no matter how they selected their electors. And at the end of the day, that's the point. People should vote, not land. We already have the Senate that gives equal representation to each state and acts as a representative for land. There's no reason to have the EC doing the same and it wasn't the EC's original purpose.
I admit I have a ideological bias in favor of the current system because it makes a full sweep more difficult, limiting the federal government.
But,
Yes it partially was. The point was to have the president basically be the middle point between state representation in the Senate, and popularish representation in the House.
It was a compromise but not between the Senate and House. Otherwise they wouldn't have involved the people and states at all. It was a compromise between the House and a popular election. Between Congress and the President being too close and a democratic mob running things. It was also part of their idea that land ownership mattered.
But nothing in the Constitution requires us to remain tied to the land and the house was supposed to keep expanding. It expanded slower and slower over time though until it straight up stopped expanding in the 1930's. Representation in the house was supposed to be far more personal, you were supposed to be able to sit down and talk with your rep.
That's why the EC has started diverging from the popular ballot. We're too big for the current cap on representatives to effectively represent. With the original ratio we'd have around 10,000 members of Congress. Even a tenth of that would go a long way to restoring the electoral system and breaking the power dynamics in Congress that favor mega donors.
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying it was designed to be representative of the people(also represented by the house) and the states(also represented by the senate).
You're thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises. At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly.
No, you're simply wrong
This video is informative
I'm not watching a 22 minute video to find whatever bit of information you're pointing to. I'm also not sure you understand the difference between the people and state interests. State interests were represented by the Senate and Senators appointed by the governors.
Having them elect the president is just a king elected by nobles by another name. That's why it was a compromise between the people directly electing the president in a popular election or Congress (as a whole) doing it.
Okay you can dismiss it, but how about I just show you what the constitution says:
The electors are determined by the state legislature. Same as what was intended of the senate.
The South Carolina legislature even appointed their electors until 1860
As Wikipedia says:
And by 1832 they were the only ones. States go back and forth for the first decade or so and then they all go in on elections.
But that's besides the point. This isn't the Constitution telling us the governors will appoint electors. The people who wrote the document knew an appointment system could not and would not stand. That was why the conversation was Congress, the People's will indirectly, or a popular vote directly. Throwing it to the state legislatures to officially decide was the compromise. The founding fathers didn't even consider putting an appointment system for electors into the Constitution.
I'm not even sure why you're arguing this? Are you trying to argue that we should appoint electors now?
Source?
But they also knew some states would prefer it and may be reluctant to ratify if a popular vote were required.
How is that a compromise? Unless you mean because it gave the states the authority, which yk, is what I said.
You said "At no point did the founders want the state interests to vote for president. It was either the people directly or the people indirectly."
Which is untrue. And again, the electoral college was intentionally designed to be a middle ground between "popular interest" and "state interest"- you falsely said "You’re thinking of the 3/5ths and the large state / small state compromises."- which is not what I was thinking of.
The number of electors states were given was guaranteed to be 4 + population. The 4 constant was for the same reason as the senate 2 constant, to fairly represent all states, + population was for the same reason as the house- to represent the population of the country as a whole.
The source is cited above. I'm not surprised you've ignored it though. You're clearly trying to paint the EC as part of the House/Senate compromise when no evidence for that exists. Which is fairly consistent with GOP propaganda about ignoring the will of the people.