What the actual fuck? Do you believe this?
That raised my eyebrow too. What would most likely happen after several years in the political wilderness is that they would drop or moderate some of the more controversial policies, either deliberately or via primary challengers, in order to stay relevant. However, that is assuming that they are losing in fair elections.
One person one vote? Declare the winner to be the person who got the most votes from Americans? How hard does it have to be?
In 2020 we no longer have slaves, we no longer award 3/5ths of black people’s vote to the white population of that states, we no longer have a need to accommodate slave states to bolster our growing union. We don’t have to do any of these fancy math tricks to ensure that we don’t accidentally free the slaves. On person, one vote.
But it was also scary how people who had pledged their electoral vote for either/both candidates patently ignored the will of the people - millions of voters -and cast their own vote. It turned out not to matter.
But what if it did? What if we had a race in which Joe Biden won by 1 million votes in the popular vote and got, say, 276 pledged electoral votes in a close-shave election? And what if a handful of electors were somehow bribed or just said “screw the voters” and ended up either switching to Trump or voting for someone else with both candidates receiving less than 270 votes, thereby sending the race to the House of Reps potentially? We would be stuck for 4 years (or longer) with a president who is incontrovertibly illegitimate.
Better yet, one person one vote with ranked choice voting and requiring a majority of the votes cast after adjusting for the second and third choices.
The EC has long outlived its purpose, which wasn’t a particularly good one in the first place. The country needs an improved system of representative voting to avoid slipping even further down the global democracy rankings.
We keep assuming that the prevention of the worst instincts in citizens is more important than effective governance that will move us all forward.
The electoral college are not selected at random.
They are deep party insiders who have no reason to vote against their own party. They are chosen for their reliability in this regard.
This.
And get rid of the primary system as well. Have a runoff or two, instead.
We never did this. It’s true that for purposes of representation in the House, the census added three-fifths of the slave population to the white population, and that boost affected the electoral vote. But the South wanted that number to be 1 while the North wanted it to be 0 (i.e. a slave couldn’t be both property and a person at the same time legally). Ironically, the South got its wish when slavery was abolished and all the millions of free blacks could be counted in their favor even though they were actively kept from voting for a century.
The three-fifths allocation therefore works almost exactly backward of the way people think it does. I wish everybody would stop referring to it as shorthand for making a slave less than a person. It wasn’t intended that way and making the slave equal would have been the worse result, allowing the South to fully have its cake and eat it too.
That’s true, but in 2016, for example, there were 7 faithless votes that were validated and 3 others that were not. I could envision a scenario in which well-organized, well-financed political organizations exerted more potent amounts of malignant pressure on the system. I don’t think this scenario unfolds where you have a highly unpopular incumbent, but I could absolutely see this happening where we have a highly polarized and closely contested election - another 2016 for instance.
Oh, they definitely intended that a slave was less than a person.
You are right that the 3/5’s rule didn’t mean that a slave was 3/5’s a person. The 3/5’s rule was enshrined to ensure that a slave would never be a person.
But most of those were doing so for kinda different reasons. Like, “Look, I’m not voting for Clinton, as the state says I should, so you don’t have to vote for Trump.”
To my knowledge, there were no Clinton electors who voted for Trump or vice versa.
They were still acting in how they felt were the best interests of their party, and they absolutely would not have changed their vote if it actually meant that the other party would have won the presidency.
It doesn’t necessarily matter what their reasons were, though. It’s also possible to infiltrate an organization. There is nothing that prevents said forces from inserting their own electors into the process, and disguising them as party loyalists. Even if you dismiss that as far-fetched, people have their prices. They can be bought.
Oh and…
Yes, we did.
as you say:
Which is awarding 3/5ths of a black person’s vote to the white population of the states.
You jumped the gun a bit there, as @HMS_Irruncible was not making the claim that you tried to deny, of
As that was not what he was doing.
Fair enough.
Let’s just say that of all the reasons that I think we should scrap the EC, that’s not the biggest.
But it is one to be sure.
No, it really wasn’t. It was there purely as a compromise to get the South to agree to the Constitution. Whether a slave was a person was a separate issue not addressed here. The whole issue of slavery, in fact, was the can kicked down the road so they could get on with business.
I also disagree with your post #111. There is an enormous difference between “a black person’s vote” and the number of electoral votes a state has. They should never be conflated.
I am not sure what you think that you are disagreeing with here.
Yes, a compromise that ensured that slaves would never be considered persons.
No, that was addressed in other parts of the Constitution. The 3/5’s part just gave white people more power to keep slavery as an institution.
Exactly what I said. They made compromises that ensured that slaves would never be people.
post 111 was about faithless electors.
if you are speaking of #113, then I don’t know what you are disagreeing on. White people got more votes in congress and for the presidency based on how many black people who did not get to vote lived in their states.
I feel you have some sort of nit here that you feel needs to be picked, and if so, come out and explain exactly why the terminology is inaccurate. Otherwise, it sounds like you are trying to say that white people in slave states did not get electoral advantages based on the number of slaves in their states. Which they did.
Yes, we did. You wrote essentially the same thing I did and are labeling it as somehow contradictory.
I did not and would not say this, so I’m not sure what’s going on here.
I’m not going to keep refuting the same point, so this will be the end on my part. Slaves were not considered to be people. Nobody thought that; neither the North (hence 0) nor the South (hence slavery), Nothing in the Constitution addresses that. The South just wanted an extra slice of cake for their agreement. This leftover from the Articles of Confederation was a sweetener. That’s all.
@ HMS_Irruncible, your wording suggested that interpretation to me. I’m glad you didn’t mean it that way.
If the parties insist on letting any ol’ yeahoo put his name in the hat instead of choosing their own best candidates and putting them up against the other parties’ best candidates, then let’s at least use approval voting for the primaries. Approval voting is great for determining the widest possible voter appeal when the list of candidates is a large one.
Here’s the text of the Constitution:
(bolding mine)