tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post5297890948707390261..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: The Electoral College System Required Trump to Win the Popular Vote—30 Timesprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-84733059249445261672017-01-25T08:24:15.377-05:002017-01-25T08:24:15.377-05:00Anonymous;
A valid point. However, I believe that...Anonymous;<br /><br />A valid point. However, I believe that fear is counterbalanced by the outsized Elector influence large states have over smaller states. The “geographical privilege,” as you put it, is a moving target that changes from election to election. It is not an automatic advantage for smaller states. California has 55 Electoral votes. North Dakota has only 3. California’s outsized influence was on display in 2004, when a swing of a mere 60,000 votes in Ohio would have handed John Kerry that state’s then 20 Electoral votes, making Kerry the president with a 271-266 Electoral vote win despite G. W. Bush’s 3+ million national popular vote majority. Bush’s national popular vote margin was larger than Hillary’s, yet Kerry came within a whisker of victory. California alone would have provided Kerry with over 20% of his Electoral margin of victory.<br /><br />It should also be considered that a simple national popular vote system would most probably end any chance of ever having anything close to a national popular majority winner. It would foster a large field of candidates, resulting in a president representing a coalition of small minority voting blocks. The Electoral College always provides a clear winner in a timely manner.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />MLprincipled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-82484863140988405382017-01-24T14:02:36.304-05:002017-01-24T14:02:36.304-05:00The arguments made here can be applied to make pre...The arguments made here can be applied to make precisely the opposite case. As a result of the mechanism of the Electoral College, by allowing North Dakota and other small population states the equivalent of 2.87 votes for every vote from California, the serious risk exists that the majority is being subjected to the "tyranny of the minority". The Electoral College was formed primarily as a political incentive for some of the more reluctant former colonies in the formative years of the Union to engage in the process of forming a new country. These incentives no longer are necessary. If anything the opposite is a more serious and credible risk, namely, that the larger states threaten to break away from the Union as a result of being subjected to unpalatable policy imposed by geographically privileged voters. California, which is the world's 7th largest economy, home to the world's most valuable companies and pays more in federal taxes than it receives from the federal government, could credibly exist independently of the rest of the US. That is not true of North Dakota or other such small states which are intimately dependent on the federal government for infrastructure, access to international markets, security and among many other benefits. Furthermore, by allowing geographical privilege under the Electoral College, the most fundamental principle of democracy is jeopardized, namely, that the leadership has a mandate from a majority of citizens to lead, which history has proven to be the only enduring and morally acceptable basis for equitably selecting a leader. When the Electoral College overrides the majority, that mandate no longer exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-91056240768918415092016-11-20T08:55:57.429-05:002016-11-20T08:55:57.429-05:00As I see it, the 3/5 clause actually reduced the p...As I see it, the 3/5 clause actually <i>reduced</i> the political power of the slave states. Since the number of electors is determined in part by the number of Representatives, which in turn is determined by total population (not the number of voters), counting the slaves as 3/5 reduced the population count and thus the number of electors in slave states. Yes, it was a compromise, but not one that favored the slave states. If the slave states could have had their way, they’d surely have counted their slaves as whole persons equal to “<i>free</i> Persons.”principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-54610340471697334262016-11-19T15:42:46.434-05:002016-11-19T15:42:46.434-05:00Actually, James Madison's "fits of passio...Actually, James Madison's "fits of passion" argument, distrusting majorities to preserve liberty, was directed at whether the Bill of Rights should be part of the Constitution. Madison reluctantly went along with the Electoral College after arguing that the only fair and just method of choosing a President was though direct election by voters.<br /><br />The "tyranny of the majority" argument against popular vote for President was raised only once during the Convention, by delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. His argument, along with his proposal of a national legislature to choose a President, was hooted down, not to be considered again at the convention.<br /><br />What you and I were taught in school came from late 19th century scholarship by Professor William Dunning of Columbia University and his working group of graduate students. It then found its way into 20th Century textbooks. Horrible truth is often the first casualty of wishful thinking. And Dunning's group, patriots as they were, very much wanted a nation still shaken by the Civil War to experience brotherhood and peace.<br /><br />In actuality, the Electoral College was created in order to preserve slavery, weighted as it was by counting 3/5 of slaves as if they were voters.<br /><br />More recent research has bypassed the Dunning School of history and gone directly to contemporary accounts by actual participants at the convention. <a href="http://fairandunbalanced.com/?p=3298" rel="nofollow">Paul Finkelman</a> is just one of many historians who have gone back to the original documents.<br /><br />Those original accounts are how we know of Madison's reason for his change of position. He explained at the time that preserving slavery through the Electoral College was the only way to get the South to support the new form of government.Burr Deminghttp://fairandunbalanced.com/?p=3298noreply@blogger.com