Posted on 02/02/2012 12:11:30 PM PST by Jacquerie
The Convention considered and rejected Executive appointment/election by Congress, State Governors and the people. Corruption and backroom deal making were feared in the first two methods. A President could hardly be independent if he was beholden to Congress or Governors for his job. As for the third, there was no telling what sort of characters the people would fall for, and voting qualifications varied widely among the States; more liberal qualifications to the North and less so in the South. Direct democracy would be limited to the first branch, the House of Representatives.
Since appointment/election by Congress and the people were rejected, it left the process to the States. By diffusing the vote across a large and growing country in which geographically diverse electors had to vote on a single day, it would render corruption, intrigue and deal making difficult.
The overriding consideration, the ever present Bull-in-the-China Shop of the Convention was the small State near-paranoid fear of large States. In probably the majority of votes, small State fears had to be reckoned with. In deciding the Presidential voting strength of States, there was no way small States would submit to the proportion delineated in Article I Section 2 for the House of Representatives. Four to five populous States could dominate the first House of Representatives, and just as the small States got their way in the Senate (equality of suffrage) they demanded greater presence in the Presidential election than their meager populations justified. That is why the sum of Representatives and Senators determine a State’s electoral vote presence.
What if there was an electoral tie, or no candidate got a majority? In this situation the Senate was initially given the duty to elect a President. This was not regarded as a fall-back or demeaning method. Just the opposite, it was thought that in most elections, no one would achieve a majority vote from the States and therefore, most elections would end up in the Senate. However, this raised the problem of possible corruption between the tidy Senate and candidates. There were other problems as well. If impeached, which was not expected to be a rare occurrence, the President could hardly expect to be found guilty by the same men who put him in office. Also, some delegates, most notably George Mason of Virginia who would become a vociferous opponent of the Constitution, were already fearful of an overly aristocratic Senate.
What to do? Give the House of Representatives the responsibility instead. In the event of a tie, Congressmen immediately vote for one or the other for President. No intrigue was possible. Should no candidate get a majority, the House casts ballots by State, one vote per State from among the five highest vote getters.
Look at the system this way:
Small States demanded (as they did with the Senate) and got representation out of proportion to their population and wealth. Advantage small States.
In a tie, (not likely) Congressmen voted at-large. Advantage large States.
When no candidate achieved a majority (thought very likely), each State was allowed one vote to cast for one of the five highest vote getters. Thus the House of Representatives of the people, which favored large States would vote in a manner acceptable to small states. Brilliant. Advantage small States.
By this arrangement, small States felt secure against the large. In the two most probable electoral situations, they held the advantage.
Our Framers specifically rejected direct, popular election and instituted the filter of electors chosen outside the reach of federal power. In this sense, the States were expected in most elections to serve as nominating conventions of five candidates for the House of Reps to choose from.
This power to appoint Presidential electors, left to the judgment of State Legislatures, was a big plus for ratification at the State Ratifying Conventions. The electoral system was simultaneously new, yet familiar enough to be accepted.
Today as then, the process is not debauched, nor is “democracy” screwed if the House of Reps must do its duty and elect the President. Popular nationwide vote count be damned; it is irrelevant.
What came to be known as the Electoral College provided a corruption resistant method acceptable to suspicious, distrustful small States, yet reflected majoritarian, federal selection of this new guy to history, the President of the United States.
Electoral College ping!
The pro popular vote troll will be along shortly to pimp whatever his script tells him to say. (mvymvy)
If it weren’t for the Electoral College We would have President Egore in 2000 instead of President Bush.
ping for later study
Because sane people trust the judgement of the Founders over the judgement of today’s politician.....
Once the left wingers get rid of the electoral college, replace it with a popular vote, and render the heartland vote as irrelevant, then the election will be totally decided by the clustered up major population center dwellers. A president like Nancy Pelosi would not be out of the question.
Popular vote is a fast track to a rural revolt.
(Not that I’m strictly opposed to starving the cities into submission)
Well stated. California, Texas,New York, and Florida would decide our national election otherwise.
Thank G-d for the Electoral College. Do we want a President to be elected by the corruption that is New York city, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Los Angeles — cities that have more votes counted than they have voters registered?
One important blessing of the Electoral College is to prevent the country’s leaders being chosen by a few big, overcrowded, filthy, dishonest cities (Yeah, you are right, I may not have expressed my opinion of city-dwellers clearly enough, LOL.)
Remember that map of the election districts in 2000? “Blue” was only in the welfare-dependent cities. The rest of the country was Red — but we came frighteningly close to having those 1% choose a leader for the other 99% of the USA. Allowing electoral votes to be proportionally tied to popular votes will only destroy the nation faster.
Thank G-d for the Electoral College. Do we want a President to be elected by the corruption that is New York city, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Los Angeles — cities that have more votes counted than they have voters registered?
One important blessing of the Electoral College is to prevent the country’s leaders being chosen by a few big, overcrowded, filthy, dishonest cities (Yeah, you are right, I may not have expressed my opinion of city-dwellers clearly enough, LOL.)
Remember that map of the election districts in 2000? “Blue” was only in the welfare-dependent cities. The rest of the country was Red — but we came frighteningly close to having those 1% choose a leader for the other 99% of the USA. Allowing electoral votes to be proportionally tied to popular votes will only destroy the nation faster.
And still do. Mostly.
The top 5 states by population today are:
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
I mean no disrespect to anyone living in those states, but the last thing I want is for elections to be decided solely by those states.
One other thing of note: Over 50% of the population lives in only 10 states.
Not this ignorant sh*t again.
We’ve already got a President like Nancy Pelosi.
Without trying, it certainly does. I think James Wilson of PA and Roger Sherman of CN were the only strong proponents of popular election.
I suspect the ulterior motive of the NPV types is violence. Our FL Supreme Court really messed up; it should have refused algore's suit and let the election law proceed.
LOL I was thinking the same.
Please explain the ignorance of my post.
It must really frost the Left to know that the dirty old slave owning Framers were on to their fraud 220+ years ago and designed a system to prevent it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.