[EM] electoral college/Serious thoughts

[Paul Kislanko]

Alex's explanation is closest to what I learned in Civics as a
6th-grader, and evidently that isn't taught any more.

The EC was a part of the "Great Compromise" that also led to the
bicameral system. Every state gets equal representation in the senate
and proportional representantion in the House. This was to ensure that
low-population states weren't ignored entirely (although now they pretty
much are anyway). 

I made no proposal and offered no opinion in my original reply, so I
wish people would quit attributing such to me. I only observed that the
worst problem with the Electoral College is the way the states have
chosen to implement their part of the METHOD. Most states do it by
statewide popular vote. Anybody think plurality is the best way to
choose a winner?

Paul Kislanko




-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-electorama.com-admin at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-admin at electorama.com] On Behalf
Of Alex Small
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:35 PM
To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] electoral college/Serious thoughts


Adam Tarr said:
> P.S.  Let's remember for a moment that the EC was not implemented as 
> some  high-concept method of guaranteeing small states' rights.  It 
> was a method  of abstracting out the vote so that the southern states 
> could get some  credit for their non-voting slave populations.  Not 
> exactly the proudest  legacy left in our system of government.

Although that was part of it, in the end I don't think there really was
any single concept or motive behind the EC.  I've read all sorts of ex
post facto explanations for the concepts behind the electoral college. 
Some are nefarious, most are lofty-sounding, but the accounts of the
Constitutional Convention make it seem like the EC was more of a
last-minute compromise that they agreed on because they were antsy to go
back home and see their wives and mistresses.

They didn't like the idea of a popular vote, so that was out.  And they
didn't like the idea of a parliamentary system, so that was out.  And,
well, somebody was going to have to elect the President, and if it
wasn't the population at large, and it wasn't Congress, then they'd just
have to form some other group to do the job, and that's what happened.
They didn't really have a coherent vision of _why_ this particular group
should do it, how these people would be chosen (that was left to each
state to decide), or what (if any) grant principle would justify it, but
that was the only compromise that would get them out of there.



Alex Small


----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info